Friday, June 3, 2011

An Agent Of The King In Every Home

Brandon Smith
June 3, 2011

The legal concept of citizen privacy from government intrusion is unfortunately a very new one in the long strides of human history. The idea that government can be limited, or restricted in its powers by the people, and that certain realms of life can and should be off-limits to the prying eyes of bureaucracy, is rarely applied in any culture of any era. This is because most civilizations have been founded and ruled upon the principles of military dominance. There was no separation between the government and the armies it fashioned; the government WAS the military. That is to say, martial law was a way of life for society, privacy was a foolish dream, and daring to contest the fact usually led to one’s death.

The Magna Carta of 1215, which King John was essentially forced to support, established a foundation for civil liberties which would then be fought over for the next several centuries. Beginning in 1627, and the ‘Petition of Right’ in Britain, common citizens began demanding a separation between military and civilian life, as well as the dismantling of standing armies which at that time were being used by the corrupt oligarchy as a means to subdue the populace. The aristocracy called it “royal prerogative”. The masses called it tyranny. However, as we all know, such breaks in the suffocation of despotism are few and fleeting. Fractures in the Petition of Right were frequent, and the aptitude of government to make war (even when there is no call for war) became the common excuse for the rulership to degrade civilian legal protections and hurtle them back into the dark ages, where property is a novelty that the authorities violate at their leisure.

During the years leading up to the American Revolution, the British attempted to stifle the growing independent nature of the colonies by issuing laws such as the ‘Writs of Assistance’, bypassing rights to privacy and allowing officials to search homes and businesses at will without probable cause, supposedly in the name of “capturing smugglers”. Not fully satisfied with this intrusion on the lives of the colonists, King George and his cronies issued the ‘Quartering Acts’, which required all colonists to welcome soldiers sent to subjugate them into their homes and to their dinner tables. According to law, early Americans were not only forced to allow warrant-less searches of their homes, they also had to show hospitality to the goons sent to dirty their doorsteps!

The purpose of these actions by governments is to assert their control over a population. THAT – IS – ALL. Rationalizations are always made; usually in the name of “protecting the public from harm”, but the real name of the game is imperialism, and fear. When the establishment violates the line of citizen privacy, and gives its agents the legal free reign to enter your home at will, the message they are trying to send is: “Your property is our property. Your life is our business. The law does not protect you. The law is our weapon.” In other words: Resistance is futile.

The Revolutionary War and the U.S. Constitution should have been the final word on the matter of limited government and the inherent rights of individuals. But, the Founding Fathers only thwarted the elites for a time, and as long as such powerful minorities of men exist, there will always be new methods of tyranny, and new battles to be endured. Some may respond skeptically, claiming that our society today is a far cry from the age of British oppression and soldiers storming our living rooms and our pantries. I would have to disagree of course, after I stopped cringing at their ignorance.

The 4th Amendment A Fond Memory…

Last month in a 3-2 decision that has shocked the independent media community but gone mostly unreported in the mainstream, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no right to block an officer’s entry into their home, even if the officer does not have a warrant. The officer also does not have to give any clear indication as to why he wishes to enter your home, meaning he can enter without cause. Justice Steven David, one of the supporting judges stated:

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence…”

“We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Keep in mind, this is the same Indiana court that decided in a previous case that an officer serving a warrant is not required to knock (make his presence known) before entering your home if he feels circumstances require it. So, to clarify; if an officer wishes to walk into your house, for any reason, he may do so, without a warrant, and without even knocking. You cannot block his path. You cannot close your door and lock it. You cannot kick his ass. You can’t even discuss the matter calmly with him before hand. He just walks in, and, he is legally protected.


While the Indiana Supreme Court did follow the decision by pointing out that a homeowner may protest an officer’s wrongful search through the courts after the fact, this is hardly any solace, and is almost adding insult to injury, since these are the exact courts that have decided our 4th Amendment rights no longer apply. Obviously, once you allow authorities to savage your Constitutional freedoms, they are hardly going to let you punish them later through their own court system.

Indiana Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., in response to the court ruling, stated in an interview that he believed the decision gave him the power to conduct house to house warrant-less searches, an idea which he still defends:

This is just the latest of a string of court decisions across the country which expand the definitions of applied law. That is to say, there is a concerted and widespread effort by courts (especially federal courts) to broaden the accepted language of the law, so that, in fact, authorities can interpret the law to mean whatever they wish it to mean for whatever purpose fits their specific needs at the time.

Cell phones are fair game, according to courts in California, and police now have the ability to search your personal data when taken into custody, even if you have not been officially charged with a crime:

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops are allowed to search your premises without a warrant if they “smell marijuana” and “hear evidence being destroyed”. Just out of curiosity, what does it sound like when evidence is being destroyed? Does the Supreme Court have the sound on file somewhere? Without a doubt, certain not quite-so-honorable police will take advantage of this ridiculous decision:

New Mexico has ruled that officers may confiscate firearms from your vehicle during a traffic stop even if they have no reasonable cause to do so, trampling the 2nd Amendment as well as the 4th. Also in New Mexico (as in many states), if you have a conceal carry permit, you are supposed to announce to the officer that you have a weapon on your person. Meaning, now you have to let the traffic cop know that you have a firearm in the car and hope he doesn’t decide to take it away from you:

We saw the broadening tactic with the passage of the Food Safety Bill S. 510 and the immensely heightened powers of the FDA to regulate even the most minute farm activity. We also saw it in the railroading of Liberty Dollar founder Bernard von NotHaus by the Department of Justice when they used an obscure and loosely worded statute, essentially comparing the coinage of ANY alternative currency, no matter how distant in appearance to U.S. legal tender, to counterfeiting. Now, we are seeing the tactic applied to the 4th Amendment itself, as law enforcement agents are given extreme prejudice to interpret their rules of engagement however they see fit. Such corruption has occurred despite the application of the 4th Amendment, to be sure, but now, the ease at which it can occur and the lack of any redress by citizens is so pronounced, there can be only one outcome; police abuse on an incredible scale.

What we are witnessing is a time honored process exploited by autocrats the world over, now being utilized right here in America. What began with the passage of the FISA Bill and the expansion of government power to tap and monitor any American’s communications without a warrant, we are now seeing in our very neighborhoods. The law is being fogged and obscured until it is no longer clearly defined, which allows police and courts to operate within a vast grey area of legal chicanery. All social structures become warped in the wake of this process until we are no longer able to recognize that which is lawful, and that which is unlawful. In the end, we will discover that almost ANYTHING can be labeled “illegal” by the establishment in such an environment, and that no one, no matter how harmless and abiding, is safe from the storm.

Going Down In Flames…

I see where this is heading, and the destination is grim, but don’t take my word for it, just simply look at what is happening around you. The divide between law enforcement and the citizenry is growing. With the Department of Homeland Security now actively placing local police and sheriff’s departments in military training regiments, in military style gear, and even arming them with tanks and heavy machine guns (yes, tanks and .50 cal machine guns), it is becoming much harder to qualify local law enforcement as a civilian entity, rather than just another extension of the Department of Defense:

Even if military outfits like Northcom are not used openly as a standing army within the U.S., we already have a standing army in the form of men who were once called peace officers, whose mandate was once to “protect and serve”. Now, the words “to protect and serve” are disappearing from police cars nationwide, and we have a law enforcement community gearing up for war! The economic breakdown has exacerbated the situation even further. As states lose more and more funding due to the crashing municipal bond markets, they are now becoming completely dependent on federal cash. And, with federal cash, there are many unfortunate strings attached…

If you have been paying attention to police brutality cases over the past few years, then you have noticed a blatant trend towards swift and immediate unprovoked violence resulting in terminal consequences. When law enforcement is trained for combat, for attack, rather than defense, when they are conditioned to believe that the public is the enemy, and that they are somehow separate, or superior, very bad things begin to happen. Let’s take a short walk down memory lane…

Oscar Grant, 22, was shot in the back by police in Oakland, CA, while restrained and laying on the ground, pleading with officers that he had a four-year-old-daughter. The incident was caught on at least three separate cell phone cameras (which may have been one of the reasons why courts in CA are so keen on allowing warrant-less search and seizure of cell phones). The shooting officer, Johannes Mehserle, was eventually charged with involuntary manslaughter (???) serving a two year sentence and eligible for parole by the end of this year. If his actions had not been caught on video and disseminated across the web, who knows if he would have even been charged at all:

John T. Williams, 50, and nearly deaf in one ear, was shot by Seattle police for whittling a piece of wood while walking across the street. Officer Ian Birk exited his vehicle, claiming Williams was “acting strangely”, yelled at him to drop the knife, then giving him less than ten seconds to comply, fired several rounds from his weapon, killing the man. The officer later claimed that Williams walked towards him in a menacing fashion. Witnesses argued to the contrary. Note that Birk had already drawn his firearm as he exited the vehicle. Also note that Birk did not identify himself as a police officer as is required by law. Williams’ knife was also found folded shut by responding officers to the scene. Birk resigned due to public pressure, but was not charged with a crime:

And most recently, Jose Guerena, 26, and a former marine, was shot 60 times (a sign of undisciplined fire) in Pima County, Arizona, by a SWAT team entering his home also occupied by his wife and four-year-old son. Guerena’s wife stated that she had seen men through the window with guns, but that they could not be identified. Guerena grabbed his rifle (as most marines would) and told his family to hide. The Pima Sheriff’s Department has changed their story on this incident several times now, but this much is clear; the department claimed Guerena fired at them with his AR-15 as they entered the home. This was a lie. Guerena’s weapon had the safety still on after his death. When this fact was made public, Pima admitted that he never fired a shot. Pima claims that they have a warrant for the Guerena home, but have obtained a court order which had it sealed from the public. Why they had it sealed is unknown (did they even have the right house?). The Guerena raid was part of a neighborhood action, supposedly to bust a drug dealing operation in the area. No drugs were found in Guerena’s home. The reason why SWAT was necessary to serve the warrant in the first place is also still unclear:

My purpose in showing you these disturbing videos is not to make you hate cops. It is to illustrate a dangerous trend amongst our civil servants. Where we once had a few “bad apples” to contend with in our police departments, now we have official training handed down from the DOD which practically requires law enforcement officials to undergo a combat mindset, a psychology of aggression. In many cases, I believe, these officers are not doing what they do out of malice or ill intent. They are doing what they do because they are being TRAINED to do it. This is what happens when a society becomes militarized. It cannot be avoided, and it will only get worse from here on. Now imagine a violent element like this being given unlimited power to decide which homes they wish to enter and how they will enter them…

Why I Will Not Submit To A Warrant-less Search…

Constitutional values cannot defend themselves. They require the people to stand firm, and to never yield. Americans today have yielded far too much already, and at some point very soon, we’re going to have to make the hard choice on what is more important; our general safety and personal comfort, or our freedoms and the freedoms of future generations. Like the American Colonials, we have a system that does not serve our best interests, but the interests of an elite few. We are quickly losing our ability to dictate the terms of our own society, and our own destinies. Sadly, we are not yet presenting the determination that the colonials held in the face of this danger. Today, we are a nation mourning its own demise before it has even occurred. We have turned to reluctant compliance and submission. We are, frankly, whiny and pathetic.

This does not have to be

While fantastic organizations like Oath Keepers are working hard to educate police and military on their sworn duty to uphold and defend Constitutional liberties, we as the citizenry must also show our support and resolve to see that the values and principles outlined in that historic document are not tarnished by apathy. The proverbial line in the sand must be drawn now, or not at all. This means, at the very least, non-compliance with unjust laws that defile our conscience, as well as our heritage.

The common response to this by naysayers would be: “You’ll comply when you have a gun in your face…”

That’s what naysayer throughout history have always said, though. They said it to the Founding Fathers, to Gandhi, and beyond. There will always be another gun to put in the faces of men who fight for the truth of a thing. There will always be men to point those guns at us. The question is, who will be more steadfast? Is the will to dominate really stronger than the will to be free? Can you ever control a people who do not fear you, even at the barrel of a gun? This is the mindset that brought this country to life, and it is a mindset we must rediscover, if we are to have any chance of survival.

Brandon Smith’s article first appeared on the website

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated

Dana Gabriel
March 29, 2011

Canada and the U.S recently issued a joint threat and risk assessment as part of ongoing efforts to further enhance security on the northern border. This initiative supports a declaration by the leaders which will work towards facilitating the movement of travel and trade between the two countries. The Canadian government has announced that they are seeking online public consultation on the security perimeter arrangement. Meanwhile, the country has been thrust into an election with the defeat of the ruling Conservative party in a non-confidence vote. During the campaign, sovereignty concerns associated with the proposed trade and security deal could become a hot-button issue.

On March 10 of this year, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Canada’s Public Safety Minister Vic Toews unveiled a Joint Border Threat and Risk Assessment. The report focuses on national security, criminal enterprises, migration, agriculture and health threats to the border. A press release described how the joint initiative, “is a part of a shared vision for border security that Secretary Napolitano and Minister Toews outlined during meetings held throughout 2010, and reflects their mutual commitment to working together to safeguard both nations’ vital assets, networks, infrastructure and citizens.” The assessment addresses common threats to the border such as, “terrorism and transnational crime articulated by President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in February. Their historic declaration – ‘Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness’ – sets forth how the United States and Canada will manage our shared homeland and economic security.”

The Conservative government has maintained that a security perimeter with the U.S. will not impact on sovereignty, but a poll issued last month suggested that Canadians remain concerned. The Vancouver Sun reported that a survey conducted by Ipsos Reid found that 68% believe Canada, “will compromise too much power over decisions about immigration, privacy and security to get a perimeter security agreement.” The poll also found that 51% of Canadians don’t, “trust Stephen Harper to negotiate a deal that improves border access but doesn’t give up powers that are important to Canada maintaining its own independence.” With respect to transparency, “An overwhelming 91% of Canadians say the negotiations should take place in public so that they can see what is on the table.” There is little doubt that the border deal will mean some sort of tradeoff between sovereignty and security.

Since the Beyond the Border declaration was announced, the Canadian government has taken some heat for the bilateral talks being held in secret. In an attempt to try and curb some of the criticism, they launched a new website where the public can share their ideas on the planned security perimeter. The submission guidelines explain, “From now through to April 21, 2011, you can participate in our online consultation and provide your thoughts on initiatives that would improve security while supporting economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity.” Apparently, the results will later be published and will help shape an action plan that is expected to be released in the coming months. Much like the infamous Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, this latest undertaking with the U.S. lacks transparency and thus far, Parliament and Congress have also been excluded from the whole process. While asking for feedback from Canadians is a step in the right direction, the measure falls well short of any national debate on the subject.

The new security perimeter deal has yet to be defined, at least publicly. In a recent Action Alert, the Council of Canadians acknowledged, “no one can know for sure what ‘perimeter security’ means until the details, which are being developed behind closed doors, are announced in June. And we are being asked to suggest only improvements (not criticisms) of a plan we haven’t seen. Furthermore, the government is clearly prioritizing the input of business groups, though all Canadian residents will be impacted by deeper security ties with the United States.” NDP MP Brian Masse called the government’s decision to offer only online public input on the proposed North American security perimeter, unacceptable and inadequate. In a letter written to International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, Masse stated, “It is my hope that you will reconsider this half measure and give Canadians the opportunity to engage the government directly in this process by conducting public consultations across Canada.” With a federal election now set for May 2, Canadians will get a chance to voice their opinions at the ballot box.

Negotiations on a Canada-U.S. trade and security agreement have sparked privacy concerns, along with fears that sovereignty could be sacrificed. During the course of the election campaign, this could become an important issue. While a lot can change over the next month, the Conservatives are currently leading in the polls. If they are able to secure a majority government, this would give them a clear mandate to pursue a continental security perimeter pact. The opposition Liberals have been somewhat critical of the proposed deal, but if they do win the election, it is unlikely that they would make any changes. In Canada, whether it’s the Conservative or Liberal party holding the reigns of power and in the U.S., a Democrat or Republican in the White House, deep North American integration continues unabated.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel

Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
Towards a North American Security Perimeter

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact:
This post first appeared on Dana’s blog, Be Your Own Leader.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

It hurts to be wrong. Not just emotionally, but physically, especially when it’s public, like swimming headfirst into a school of very ill-tempered jellyfish…..or maybe piranha. The horror of it is almost cinematic. The more artificially pumped your ego, or the more brainwashed with academic pretension, the more terrifying that moment of realization is, that moment when all your assumptions are dashed aside like a three-year-old’s alphabet blocks. To a certain point, it is understandable why so many people live in such violent denial, however, this does not detract from the perils of that denial…

The clowns that are the most “successful” are those that follow the establishment guidelines and play on them as if they might dare break the barrier of lies, but they never do.

Americans are masters of avoiding responsibility for bad assumptions. I have seen middle-aged women cry, actual tears, because they have been proven incorrect on something as simple as the price of dishwashing detergent at the grocery store. I have seen full-grown men throw wild-eyed tantrums and even threaten people with death because they couldn’t handle being wrong about the correct score of a football game. I once saw a man froth at the mouth and shout vicious obscenities for 20 minutes straight because he refused to believe there where more than three ‘Jaws’ movies (I wish ‘Jaws: The Revenge’ didn’t exist either, but I’m not going to have a spasm over it). I have seen little old ladies physically attack people because they were embarrassed to be wrong, not realizing that their response was far more humiliating and self deprecating than just being “mistaken”. I have, indeed, seen the glory of overgrown babies in action.

America is not the only culture prone to this, Americans just happen to be the worst losers. We lash out when we are wrong, while most Europeans tend to intellectualize ideas that challenge their false perceptions, as if they are “above” even considering them. They are masters of rationalizing the facts away, while we are masters of brutalizing those people who are messengers of the facts.

Some of these unfortunate members of our society are merely lemmings; sheep following each other mindlessly without questioning the purpose or the destination. They are spectators in world events, and nothing more. While others are far more dangerous because they take an active role in the shaping of events, not knowing that their idiocy is contributing to the suppression of the truth and even the downfall of our nation. They help elitists to dismantle dissent and in the process damage their own future. It sounds insane, and in a way, they ARE psychologically ill, but in a manner that has been deemed tolerable (or even practical) by society. We call these people “Useful Idiots”.

How does one know when he has encountered such a person? How does he cope? Let’s examine some of the telltale signs of the useful idiot…

Just Smart Enough To Be Stupid…

Learning is a full time job, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the very moment your ticker tocks and you find yourself sporting a cloud and a harp. Some people, though, seem to think that retirement on learning starts at around age twenty. Useful idiots are commonly men and women who are intelligent enough to retain information but not driven enough to research its validity, or to follow a thought through to its logical conclusion. They very often work in professional fields such as law, business, medicine, politics, engineering, media, entertainment, etc. (though there are many others in these fields who are not caught up in their own delusional worlds). These are people in a position to influence others just by the virtue of their work, regardless of how clueless they actually are.

Lacking knowledge is not such a terrible crime as long as you are willing to admit that you do. There is always someone out there who is going to know more than you about some things, if not many things. That’s life. Useful idiots, on the other hand, are rarely willing to admit that they are lacking in any department. They usually have just enough knowledge to make themselves “convincing” to those who don’t recognize them for what they are. In this way they are a sort of mini-Chernobyl, waiting to spew radioactive waste (disinformation) at any given moment, mutating public opinion.

Their ability to think is limited to memorization. The problem with this way of viewing the world is that it excludes critical thought, intuition, empathy, and wisdom. It traps us in a box composed of all the things we have been TAUGHT, but keeps us from the things we could discover on our own. Useful idiots are walking talking toasters; all they take is bread, and all they make is toast (and the occasional pop tart). Frankly, I’m bored with toast.

One need only take into account the vast number of so called financial analysts in the mainstream media who denied there was any threat of economic collapse back in 2006/2007. How many of them stopped to consider the consequences of ignoring the facts because of their egomania and inability to think beyond their conditioning? How many lives and nest-eggs have been destroyed, or are waiting to be destroyed, because of them? How many of these useful idiots ever apologized for their blundering? I can’t think of any…

Reacting To The Truth, Instead Of Absorbing It…

Useful idiots talk, they don’t listen. They ask lots of questions, but never wait to hear your answers. For them, questions are not a search for information, but rather a method of antagonism. It is a way to keep everyone else on guard while making themselves feel superior. In this game, the useful idiot never has to expose his ignorance because he never has to enter into a meaningful dialogue with anyone who has an opposing view. All he has to do is attack, attack, attack.

I have seen all kinds of reactionary tactics from useful idiots, but I find that the most common one for the American brand is the application of overt bravado. They turn everything into a joke whether it is funny or not. Laughing at that which we don’t understand sometimes makes things less frightening, but it also makes us more passive. Dedicated clowns, for all their theatrics and daring, are generally impotent historical figures. How many clowns or comedians have ever really dared to break the establishment mold and aim a magnifying glass at the true absurdity of our system or our culture? How many have inspired legitimate and original thought? I can think of only a handful, and almost all of them remained tied back by the entertainment industry for their beliefs.

The clowns that are the most “successful” are those that follow the establishment guidelines and play on them as if they might dare break the barrier of lies, but they never do. In Medieval times, even the most blood thirsty king would allow the court jester to make jokes at his expense. Why? Because the jester was an inconsequential figure, a powerless and non-threatening being. A jester can verbally thrash a tyrant, but nothing ever really changes, because deep down, though they make us laugh, nobody really cares what clowns have to say. Now imagine a whole subsection of our country emulating this dynamic. Imagine all these people deluding themselves into thinking that being a slave isn’t all that bad, as long as you’re the funny slave.

When confronted with a truth that threatens their established world view, useful idiots will do anything to distract or derail the exchange. Making bad jokes, resorting to childish ridicule, ignoring cold hard logic, making threats, denying you are qualified to present the facts, even though the facts speak for themselves no matter who is relaying them, etc. Rarely will they confront the truth you present on its own terms. Instead, they will try to make YOU the issue of discussion, and not your information.

Skewed World View...

Is it really that hard to double check a piece of data to confirm whether or not it is true? Apparently, it must be, because so many Americans have decided to believe whatever they are told without a second thought as long as the guy telling them is in a suit or a white lab coat. If a guy in a lab coat told you that cyanide makes you more desirable to the opposite sex, would you slam down a glass before hitting the singles bar, or would you verify the info and actually research the damned subject before hand?

You might say “well cyanide is poison, everybody knows that!” Yes, people know that because they research it. But how many other poisons do Americans ingest daily because some official gave the thumbs up? Mercury (thimerosal), aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, rBGH, Bisphenol-A, and numerous others. One stop at the computer would produce thousands of pages of research which shows the volatile nature of these chemicals and the consequences of exposure. Why do we contaminate our guts with this garbage on pure faith?

Welcome to the realm of the useful idiot…

The useful idiot is not just the guy chugging down GMO milk filled with udder puss, anyone can do that and not be useful. No, the useful idiot is the FDA official or the corporately paid scientist who SELLS us on the purity of the milk. He’s the local dentist who laughs at you when you question the safety of all that fluoride accumulation in your bloodstream. She’s the nurse who threatens to call CPS because you don’t want your newborn baby injected with half a dozen mercury laced vaccines two months after they exit the womb. The useful idiot is the guy who received his standardized academic neuron rinse but never learned that the first rule of academia used to be ‘question everything’.

World view is really a battle between inherent conscience, common sense, and the conditioning of our era. Even a single root misconception, like the belief in the legitimacy of the false left/right political paradigm, could easily skew the whole of a person’s vision to a sea of truths. The useful idiot is not only conditioned himself, but he also becomes an agent of that conditioning in others. When confronted with a truth outside of his established world view, he almost short circuits. He has lived most of his life with the ideas and propaganda of others slogging around in his skull. To be faced with the possibility that all of that time, energy, and devotion, was worthless, is almost too much to bear.

Making A Difference, One Lost Freedom At A Time…

Sometimes the best qualities of good people are ironically the worst qualities in the useful idiot. Useful idiots love to participate…in anything…as long as it’s sanctioned by a recognizable organization. Bless their hearts, they just want to get out there and make a difference! Go team!

This is a serious issue with those on both sides of our fake political spectrum, left and right. How many people clamored to be a neo-con after 9/11, only to find that in their quest for public safety, they wrongly supported the weakening of Constitutional freedoms, the destabilization of our economy, not to mention the invasion of Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (even if you believe the official story) or any other terrorist attack in this country? How many liberals ran screaming like schoolgirls at a Justin Bieber concert towards the global warming and carbon tax scam, only to find out that the climate labs responsible for all the research they had been eating up without question was actually using contrived and in some cases completely fabricated data? I won’t even get into the Obama-fever thing, mainly because my stomach isn’t strong enough at the moment.

The problem with useful idiots is that they want to participate TOO much. So much that they’ll jump on any bandwagon that is well funded and flamboyant enough to peak their interest. They are joiners with highly superficial standards, like brownshirts, or lice. This is where they do their worst damage…

Participation, for the useful idiot, is not about making a difference; it is about feeling like they are making a difference. In some cases, it’s about “hope”, but not real or effective action. In other cases, it’s about vengeance and malice, but not justice or integrity. In either scenario, the key missing factor is the truth, which is neglected or traded for a quick boost in self esteem. This makes the useful idiot the prime target of elitist disinformation. Nearly all criminal actions by governments receive their primary support from this portion of the citizenry exactly because they are so ridiculously eager. They are the zombie ditch diggers of the globalist infrastructure, chopping away at our liberties in search of brains.

Confronting The Useful Idiot…

Why bother trying to communicate with these dimwits at all? Are they not the very definition of a lost cause? Perhaps. I can say with a certain authority, though, that some of them can be introduced to awareness, especially since I used to be one of them…

I was the Democrat putting up Kerry stickers and handing out buttons back in 2004. I was the guy who shut down any conservative viewpoint no matter how accurate or valid because Bush was the devil incarnate (and also because I was uninformed enough to believe that neo-cons were actually conservative). I was the guy at those protest rallies where no one including myself really understood the topics we were speaking out on. I knew corporations were the enemy, but I didn’t understand why. I knew the wars were dishonest, but I thought they were all about oil. I knew the economy was in trouble, but I barely knew what the Federal Reserve was, let alone fractional reserve banking or fiat currency. It took many years to fully remove my head from my ass, but I did. I see no reason why others could not do the same, given the right prompting.

The useful idiot has to be faced with queries he can’t weasel out of or deflect. That means continually asking him questions and demanding he support his responses with concrete proof. He has to be shown beyond a doubt that at least one of his precious ideals is unfounded and unsupported by the facts. Just one. After that, he can no longer assume that any of his other views are rock solid either. He will be forced to finally check his sources, which usually leads to a terrifying epiphany; he knows nothing! It’s like falling down a bottomless South American sinkhole with nothing to grab onto. I know, because I felt it once.

Eventually, he accepts the loss of his old identity, the foolish man that was so confident and certain, and moves on towards a frightening world where he must teach himself, instead of waiting around for others to teach him. The empowerment and the awe of this process is nearly indescribable, it has to be experienced to be understood. It’s like being able to see and to speak clearly for the first time. You never knew what you were missing because you had nothing to compare it to; only that unsettling knot at the pit of your stomach, telling you that something was very wrong. Now, to go back would be unthinkable, even hellish.

Nobody sees themselves as a useful idiot serving the interests of tyrants in the oppression of their fellow man. But, the fact remains that many Americans are in just such a position. You can hate them, you can even wish them ill, but don’t give up on them all. Contesting ignorance is not just the civic duty of the informed, it is also an act of compassion towards those who are not.

You can contact Giordano Bruno at:

Friday, August 20, 2010

Google Plans To Kill Web In Internet Takeover Agenda

Google’s agreement with Verizon to speed certain Internet content to users opens the door to the complete sterilization of the world wide web as a force for political change. Under Google’s takeover plan, the Internet will closely resemble cable TV, independent voices will be silenced and the entire Internet will be bought up by transnational media giants.

People who want to run a simple blog will be priced out of existence, online TV and radio shows will cease to exist as the Internet is swallowed up by the corporate borg.

True net neutrality means that independent news outlets who attract an audience by telling the truth can compete on an even keel with corporate giants like ABC, CBS and CNN. The Google-Verizon pact will end that level playing field and in turn eliminate everything that is outside of the mainstream.

“A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online,” writes Josh Silver. “A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.”

The deal will also split the Internet into a two-tier system, a cyber toll road, where satisfactory speeds and service will only be obtainable by those willing to pay substantial fees.

The pact also gives Google and huge ISPs the leeway to block certain websites on wireless networks, meaning Prison Planet and Infowars will ‘go dark’ for millions of people.

Once Google’s fiercest critics have been silenced for good the company can then set about implementing its CIA-backed total information awareness program, which will scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information left by individual users, aiming to use this data to “predict the future” and completely direct and control people’s lives and behavior.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has announced that Google, in conjunction with the CIA, is set to become the ultimate Big Brother entity that “will know so much about its users that the search engine will be able to help them plan their lives” by constantly tracking their location via smart phones and telling them where to go and what to do.

We have previously reported on Google’s intimate and long standing connections to government spy networks.

There is also no doubt that Google is one of the corporations at the forefront of the government’s drive to use cybersecurity as a pretext for killing the free Internet, having previously worked with the NSA and the CIA.

The recent scandal involving the company’s street view roaming vehicles accessing the wi-fi details of internet users and mapping their online activities has also raised serious questions over intelligence links and abuse of privacy laws.

Check back soon for quotes and screenshots from an important new video in which Alex Jones breaks down Google’s plan to kill the web and explains why it’s the end of the Internet as we know it unless we stand up now and say no.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Cassandra Anderson
August 17, 2010

Last Friday a federal judge imposed a nationwide ban on GMO sugar beets and it was overturned the next business day. Sugar beets comprise 50% of the sugar used in US food, and 95% of the sugar beets grown in the US are GMO. It is the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture to determine whether plants are environmentally safe; this case is about whether the plants can cross pollinate (by wind, insects, etc) and contaminate other plants. This could have cost Monsanto billions of dollars.(1)

The sugar beet ban was overturned, based on a Supreme Court decision, which lifted the nationwide ban on GMO alfalfa in June.

Less than 2 weeks ago, wild growing canola in North Dakota was discovered to be 86% GMO. Because GMO crops are crossed with herbicide resistant plants (usually weeds), they grow like weeds and contaminate natural plants. Alarmingly, two of the canola samples collected by scientists showed that multiple genes from different species of GMO canola plants cross pollinated without cultivation, and probably for several generations. The implication of this is that GMO seeds can readily contaminate natural seeds and become out of control.(2)

The GMO alfalfa ban lawsuit about contamination was the first GMO case ever heard by the Supreme Court, despite countless lawsuits from farmers whose fields have been polluted by GMOs. The sugar beet ban was overturned, based on a Supreme Court decision (7-1), which lifted the nationwide ban on GMO alfalfa in June.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the nationwide GMO alfalfa ban was too broad, so it was lifted; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be performed by the USDA is still pending. GMO crops are environmentally dangerous because they can readily spread, as proven by the wild GMO plants found in North Dakota. The Supreme Court never addressed the issue of whether GMO plants contaminate natural plants through cross pollination.

Remember that the appointed Supreme Court judges collect their paychecks from the federal government. The USDA co-owns a patent with Monsanto for the ‘Terminator’ gene (which make seeds go sterile after one harvest). Is the Supreme Court’s loyalty to the federal government, in this case protecting the ‘Terminator’ patent owned by the USDA and its business-partner Monsanto, or is their loyalty to the American people?

The Supreme Court has never accepted a GMO food safety case, which falls under the jurisdiction of the corrupt FDA. Organ damage and sterility have been linked to a GMO food diet in lab animals.

Many of the organizations that represent farmers whose farms appear to be compromised. For instance, Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety has another tax-exempt organization that is pursuing the removal of natural colloidal silver from public use and has accepted $1.75 million from the John Merck Fund, which has ties to the Rockefellers, who have been major financiers of biotechnology and food control for decades.

The Sierra Club’s own website supports the United Nations Population Fund which has its roots in eugenics.(3)

Earthjustice is another example of a tax-exempt organization that uses the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development model for “helping” people and the environment, when really the overall objective is to reduce the population. They have $30 million in funding and support the Sierra Club’s mission against the “overriding threat of spiraling population growth and over consumption.”(4)

Monsanto’s GMOs, which no one would want if they fully understood the health and contamination dangers, have thoroughly infiltrated America’s farms and food supply by way of government regulations, which is how monopolies are created. The Rockefellers have practiced food control for generations and fund biotechnology. The US government has worked in opposition to farmers and public health in granting Monsanto patents on seeds, thus enabling Monsanto’s licensing agreements with farmers that keep the farmers paying royalties even after they stop growing Monsanto products. The United Nations has been complicit in spreading GMO seeds across the world through WTO regulations and other means. Many environmental NGOs are accredited through the UN, “non-profit” organizations (tax-exempt is a better description because many of these 501(c)3 organizations reap plenty of profits) and tax-exempt foundations all work together to pursue the Agenda 21 Sustainable Development goals of depopulation and total control, using the environment as the excuse.

For a full analysis, please click on these links:

The Rockefeller Family- Part One

Monsanto’s Monopoly- Part Two

Internaional Takeover by the UN- Part Three

Scams & Solutions- Part Four





Monday, August 16, 2010

Here Comes the North American Union!

There appears to be a real appetite among U.S. legislators for the creation of a North American trade block, according to the MLA for Emerson.

Cliff Graydon attended a meeting between legislators from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and elected officials from 11 mid-west U.S. states last week.

He says American law makers voiced their support for a North American style trading block to counter the Europeans.

Graydon says there didn't appear to be any opposition to the idea from the provincial delegates.

Graydon says there was also strong support from legislators on both sides of the border for better trade harmonization between the two countries.


Friday, August 6, 2010

Sodium Fluoride: Poison In The Tap Water

Paul Joseph Watson & Matt Ryan
Thursday, August 5, 2010

Alex Jones is launching a new campaign to inform the public about the toxic chemical fluoride being added to tap water across the country. While EPA scientists and workers are calling for an end to water fluoridation, the government is doing everything in its power to continue and even increase the amount of toxic chemicals being added to public water supplies.

We are also calling people to search for the term “poison tap water” in order to drive this vitally important subject to the top of Google trends and educate millions of people who would never otherwise come into contact with this information.

While sodium fluoride is commonly used as a rat poison, globalists and eugenicists have decided to add it to water supplies with the message to the public being that it is good for teeth, despite warnings from the ADA stating that young children risk a disease called dental fluorosis. The Guardian reported that fluoride water can also cause cancer.

The flyer listed above is a tool that can be used to get the message out about this serious crime against the people. Fluoride is a toxic poison that has known serious side effects. Spread the word. Post this flyer in legal, easily visible locations. Pass it out to friends, family, and people you meet.

Fluoride being artifically added to drinking water in India is causing blindness and deformities amongst children.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute study found that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release, the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote in June, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”


- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

- In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

- In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride.

As Alex Jones explains in the following clips, it’s not just the water but also food and vaccines that are contaminated with all manner of deadly poisons.