False Flags and the Quickening Pace of "Events"

Suddenly we can't help but shoot each other?
I don't buy it - neither should you.

Let's have a conversation about public shootings Does anybody else wonder why these are all happening? We've had guns for the entire history of America and it's only been in the last decade or so that people can't seem to help themselves when it comes to randomly shooting up public places?

More to the point, in the last couple of years we've seen these types of events nearly monthly, some large and some small, but all odd, very public and all followed up with a blitzkrieg of instant 24/7 coverage, much of which intended to whip up emotions, instant capture of the alleged guilty parties, which often die on the scene, and are all followed up with swift and fast legislation to "prevent future tragedies."

Let's pick it apart a bit and you tell me, is this a tin-foil hat situation or is there truly something going on. At what part in our history did the entire nation change their laws in response to individual crimes. Think about that for a moment. We've had people go on killing sprees, serial killers, arsonists, Uni-bombers and hundreds of other types of crimes.....we've always had these things. 

But now these things become pitch points for new laws to make us safer, even if the means ripping away your civil liberties in the mean time. If you raise a red flag you're called callus or conspiratorial, and soon the cycle repeats itself. I'm preparing a post on the Houston Airport shooting because I can tell you, it took 2 minutes of watching a "news report" of the event before red flags started coming up.....

Not Ready to go to the False Flag theory?

The U.S.S. Conntz in the Gulf of Tonkin

If you're hesitant to believe that governments harm their own citizenry, well we have plentiful examples of them doing just that. The government sprayed Agent Orange over the heads of their own troops in Vietnam, hitting everything living and then fighting soldiers who claimed their illness was due to this highly dangerous substance.

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment in which the U.S. Health service followed the course of syphilis in African American men. They found 600 poor sharecroppers, about 400 had syphilis the others were the control. They pretended to treat the men, but in fact were simply watching them to see what happens if you let syphilis progress. 

The U.S. was put into the Vietnam war by the staged attack on U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The news of the day was that North Vietnamese boats were to blame, it wasn't until 30 years later that the truth was made known. Tapes released in 2001 prove that president LBJ knew that the event was fake.

Federal Hypocrisy -Eric Holder should resign

Credit Raul 654
This is a Free speech zone - behind wire - at the 2004 DNC
Feeling Patriotic?

If  you've been following the gun confiscation efforts across the country, and you should be, you know that some states have attempted to put laws into effect that would impede or prevent Federal agents from enforcing any anti-Second Amendment laws.

Kansas is one such state, with SB102 signed into law just one month ago. This law basically nullifies any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation in the United States that violates the second amendment.  They state that such a law is not enforceable in the state of Kansas.

This law also provides for criminal penalties for those trying to enforce such unconstitutional laws and states that the federal government doesn't have interstate commerce authority over guns manufactured in their state.  This is a great law and a great step for every state to take to make their wishes known.

But of course, the United States Federal Government doesn't agree. After all, they want to crush the second amendment and disarm lawful citizens. In response to SB102 Attorney General Eric Holder issued a letter which will make you both angry and baffled at the same time.

In this letter Holder says that SB102 is unconstitutional because it conflict with federal law.  He says that federal agents cannot be forced to decide between criminal constitution and their federal duties. He goes on to say that the government will take all actions necessary against Kansas to keep them from interfering with federal law or federal agents.

Let's get this straight....
If you don't feel like you're down the rabbit hole at this point, I don't know what to say. What Holder is saying is that anything the federal government elects to make law is law, and you can't do anything about it. He is saying that the federal government makes laws and we follow them, period, no questions asked.

I find it supremely hypocritical for any agent of the government to talk about constitutionality these days. Seriously. Holder wants to decry Kansas's attempt to PRESERVE your constitutional right as UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Please somebody tell me how that works because there is no way you can use logic to defend Holder's claims.

Let's talk about unconstitutional... 

Credit Victor Falk
TSA Backscatter X-Ray - Shows your nude body to agents
This is not constitutional

Our federal government no puts up free speech zones, often times little cages placed conveniently out of the way for people to exercise their "free speech."

Do you think having a different opinion and wanting change and speaking up means you should be confined to a cage like an animal? Well our government does  yet they want to talk to us about the constitution?

I seem to recall a right to free speech in there and it didn't involve the need to be confined like criminals. (Check out the free speech zone image at the start of this entry.)

Let's talk about illegal searches with TSA agents man handling your genitals and scanning you with dangerous equipment. Let's talk about the out of control police force that will taser you first and ask questions later.  Let's talk about the "Patriot Act" which is the most sweeping unconstitutional act ever enforced up the citizens of the United States.

So, if Holder was concerned with the constitution, he'd resign and join the fight against this type of government intrusion.  But, let's be real, Holder wants what all federal puppets want, complete and absolute control over you, your family and every aspect of your life.

Stupid Humans - We're not even making this hard for them

During the course of my regular work I have access to see hundreds and hundreds of people's stream of information through social media. People volunteer their information en masse and consider it entertainment. Recently I saw this post and I grabbed it and saved it as "stupid humans."

You know how every damn store in the universe wants to have their own special "savings card" where you give them your address, phone number, email address and various other pieces of information and they throw you a few cents off on the junk they sell. It is obnoxious, it's an invasion of privacy and we fall for it because the bastards inflate the prices of their wares so much most of us are barely eating.

Bragging about trading in all your personal data
for some savings on an overpriced product?

So, here I see a post with this image and what I am sure they thought sounded like a funny little blurb. This genius is bragging about saving on fuel by trading in every bit of personal information they have.

I know the fuel saver program they are talking about and they want your real name, address, email address, phone number, how many times a week you shop with them, how may miles you drive a week and a few other things....

They act like I'm insane when I repeatedly say, "No, I dont want to have your card."  I'm so very tired of these programs, of cashiers asking for your zip codes and other information.

Wake up friends, it's none of their damn business so let's all agree to stop giving them everything they want with no fight at all! Seriously, it is the small infringes that people put up with that pave the path for the larger ones. Things like this creates a mind set that slowly starts to accept that it's OKAY for companies and government, the biggest company of all, to build huge files with our data.

Stupid humans indeed. Let's just tell them no and see how quickly the smiles turn into anger and force. In fact, tell some of these people no and see how short they get with you as you check out.. and that comes from a minimum salary worker scanning bar codes for a living.

FBI Creates Terrorists Plots.... Just so they can "solve them"

And he's going to push you to
commit crimes so he can catch you?

There was an article in the New York Times titled "Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I." This piece details the common F.B.I. practice of finding people that might be interested in committing a crime, grooming them, funding and goading them into going through with something and then arresting them for it.

Hell, our Federal government will SUPPLY suspects with items that later are used to incriminate them. Sound right to you? Let's talk about Mohamed Osman Mohamud, an Oregon college student that was helped to create a bomb to attack the Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland.  The FBI provided him with a van, 6 drums of "inert" material, blasting caps that weren't active, detonator mechanisms and diesel fuel to make the van small flammable and dangerous.

Actually, an FBI agent, under cover of course, drive with Muhamud to set off the "Bomb."  So, in effect, they found somebody unhappy with things, I'm sure they profiled him and his name was a big plus to the powers that be, and they held his hand every step along the way, basically encouraging him to become a "bomber."

Is this legal? This article says it is. Sounds like entrapment, but I'm not an attorney. But, the bigger question is  would these people have ever committed such a crime had they not been encouraged by our government. Our government funded their efforts and in doing so, pushed them into actions we have no idea if they would have ever taken. This is a pre-crime division of our government, Minority Report style, and I don't know why more people are shocked, angry and frightened?

The case of the Oregon "bomber" is by no means the only one. There are many more examples and all the while, people are congratulating the agency on a job well done. What job? Manufacturing fear and arresting people for things you tried to get them to do?  I don't know about you, but this is not a reality I want to be a part of.

We are just a couple steps away from arresting people off the street based off of their book and movie selections. After all, they watched an anti-American movie, they checked "The Catcher and the Rye" out from the library and we see them walk down the same street a suspicious number of times via government monitored street cams. They must be dangerous, right? Think about where we're going and then help me think of ways to solve it.