Guest Post: Why The Surveillance State Must Be Erased

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

In America today there is a great rushing storm, a swirling hurricane of clashing opinions and ideologies that defy coherent organization and classification.  This social tempest has been triggered by certain revelations among the general public on issues which we in the Liberty Movement have long been aware.  The fact that our government is bought and paid for by international corporate interests, the fact that our government has positioned itself to spy on ALL Americans without warrant and without probable cause, the fact that our government is instituting policy initiatives that target common citizens as enemy combatants, the fact that every one of our Constitutional rights is being deliberately torn away; these things are not news to us, but to many once ignorant people, they are a shock to the system.

Open corruption on the part of a criminal establishment has a funny way of politicizing everyone, even those people who go out of their way to avoid the bigger picture.  In the end, no man or woman gets a pass.  Whether you like it or not, one day soon, you will have to choose a side; freedom or tyranny.  There is no middle ground.  There is no Switzerland. 

With all the rationalizations and counter-rationalizations flying around concerning the current avalanche of admissions and data leaks, it is easy to lose track of the root of the overall conflict.  It’s as if we have been dropped into the heart of an Amazonian swamp, our feet encased in a thick sludge of social inaction as a dark cloud of mindless mosquito-people buzz about us, pecking hungrily at our veins with their warped and uneducated world views.  The deafening chorus distracts us from what is truly important.

Here is the reality of our situation:

1) Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration supported FISA domestic surveillance legislation.  FISA is the legal tool which the federal government now uses to justify the monitoring of journalists and recently exposed mass surveillance programs such as PRISM.  Politicians from both the Republican and the Democratic parties have defended the use of FISA and PRISM.  Both parties support the destruction of your 4th Amendment rights. 

2) The Obama Administration openly admits to the monitoring of journalists phone and email records in an attempt to thwart whistleblowers that might actually bring the truth of what the government is doing into the light of day.  Obama of course defends this position by claiming that “national security” is at stake.

3) Part of the motivation for surveillance measures against journalists has clearly been the Benghazi conspiracy, which is a thorn in the side of the establishment that refuses to go away.  Like Watergate, or Iran-Contra, the White House has been caught with its pants down and instead of admitting its guilt, has decided to attack the messengers instead. 

4) Another motivation was certainly the exposure of the ATF’s “Fast And Furious” program, which funneled U.S. firearms into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that American firearms dealers and owners could be blamed for the escalation of deadly violence south of the border.  Again, Obama and his handlers seek to use a suffocating surveillance grid in order to thwart whistleblowers and prevent federal crimes from being aired in public.

5) The use of the IRS as a weapon against the political enemies of the establishment (namely Tea Party groups) verifies that government surveillance without oversight can indeed lead to political profiling and unjustified punishment.

6) The PRISM scandal, leaked by former CIA operative and NSA contractor Edward Snowden, has given the general public a raw naked look at the reality of the FISA spy initiative.  In the past, Liberty Movement champions have been derided as “paranoid” for pointing out that there were no limitations to FISA, and that the entire nation might one day be monitored and catalogued like animals in a great technological cage.  Today, the public now knows that this concern is concrete and undeniable.  EVERYONE is being watched.  Reports now estimate that NSA hackers harvest over 2.1 million gigabytes of data on American citizens per hour.

7) Privacy rights have been so debased that the invasion of our electronic communications is the least of our worries.  The Supreme Court has ruled in Maryland v. King that police now have the authority to extract DNA samples from any person placed under arrest, without a warrant, and without due process.  This means that the second a law enforcement officer places you in cuffs, your genetic materials are no longer your property, even if the charges against you are erroneous, if charges are ever filed at all.  The government admits to having at least 10 million people catalogued in their genetic database already.

8) Since 9/11, U.S. cities have added approximately 30 million new CCTV cameras on top of those already in operation.  After the Boston Bombing, even more are expected to be installed.  There are few places in most major cities where you are not being watched, and even smaller municipalities with miniscule crime rates are beginning to follow suit.

It would seem that our government has somehow overlooked the 4th Amendment of our Constitution, and statist rationalists would do well to study it before defending their actions.  Let’s read it, shall we?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now let’s examine the arguments of the establishment in favor of the Surveillance State:

Argument #1:  Mass Surveillance Has Been Going On For A Long Time And Is Nothing New

Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham, perhaps the most evil political duo since McCain and Lieberman, have both used the above talking point in order to rationalize the mass surveillance of FISA and PRISM.  But let’s put this in perspective…

Feinstein and Graham are essentially saying that because the government has criminally trespassed on our privacy for years, we should not complain when we discover that the invasion was a bit more elaborate than we had originally suspected.  They are saying that because we allowed them to get away with taking an inch, we might as well allow them to get away with taking a mile.  This is the logical fallacy of incrementalism, and tyrants use it in their arguments all the time.

Despotism rarely establishes itself overnight.  Rather, it slithers slowly into the midst of a society like a parasite, and carefully entrenches itself under our skin bit-by-bit so that we do not notice until it is buried so deep we fear removing it at all.  A line must be drawn in the sand eventually.  Past mistakes are not a license for future failures and future regrets, and anyone who claims otherwise is trying to take something away from you.

Argument #2:  If You’re Not Talking To Terrorists, Then You Have Nothing To Worry About

Another debate point from the bottom feeding Lindsey Graham.  First off, our Constitutional rights are not predicated on whether or not we are guilty of “terrorism”.  Even a so-called terrorist is supposed to be protected under the Bill of Rights.  The law is very clear, and this is not a negotiable position.  Every American, regardless of government suspicion, has a right to privacy, and is protected from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause.  Period.  Graham’s argument perpetuates the fallacy that the word “terrorism” is somehow a magical password that allows the federal government to bypass Constitutional barriers.  I’m sorry to tell Lindsey that he is greatly mistaken.

Secondly, the very foundation of a free society requires that every person be treated as INNOCENT until proven guilty.  Mass surveillance twists this principle, so that all people are treated by the state as guilty until proven innocent.  Such a system will inevitably generate a vast rift between the populace and the government because it designates the political elite as the “watchers” and the public as the “watched”.  As history has shown us, the "watchers" always become the enslavers, and the "watched" always become the enslaved.   

I’m not sure why so many people, including U.S. senators, do not seem to grasp this concept.    

Argument #3:  We Must Trust That The Government Is Using The Surveillance Apparatus For Good

Barack Obama in defense of the leaked PRISM initiative and all encompassing NSA surveillance stated that Americans must simply “trust” that the federal system is using the data they have criminally harvested for the good of the country.  That is to say, we should have “faith” in the White House. 

I’m sorry, but the Constitution was written exactly because governments are run by men, NOT benevolent gods, and men are notorious for abusing power.  The Constitution exists because NO government can be trusted to act in a principled manner.  We do not have to “trust” them because tight constitutional restrictions are in place to ensure that they aren’t given enough slack to become dangerous.  When those restrictions are diminished, we get programs like PRISM…

The checks and balances of due process and warrants are supposed to be absolutely public and transparent so that we can see, with our own eyes, that all is being handled justly and honorably.  Mass surveillance in particular is an affront to the 4th Amendment because there is no conceivable way that warrants could ever be issued for the incredible volume of materials gathered, and therefore, there is no conceivable way that any legitimate judicial oversight is being enforced.  Secret courts, secret charges, secret programs targeting entire subsections of the population, were expressly forbidden by the Founding Fathers as totalitarian in nature.

In February of this year, Obama boasted during a Google Plus “Fireside Chat” that his was “the most transparent administration in history”.  The ability of politicians to lie with sociopathic expertise is well documented, hence, my lack of faith.

The government and the Obama White House in particular do not deserve our trust.  Trust has to be earned…

Argument #4:  Surveillance Programs Are Essential To The Safety Of The Public

At this point I find that anyone who still uses the “safety” position to justify the trampling of our freedoms is a lost cause.  Years ago, when the surveillance grid was being put into place through legal chicanery, the common skeptic would insist that such subversive laws had not yet hurt anyone, and that the concerns of the Liberty Movement were “overblown”.  Today, it’s no longer about theory.  Our cultural pain is real, people are being targeted, people are suffering, and it’s only going to get worse from here on.  And, as we warned a long time ago, the concept of “collective safety” would be the primary persuasion technique used to lead America further into oblivion.    

In a race to spin the leak of PRISM, lawmakers and establishment shills have come out in droves to suggest that the secret surveillance state has “stopped terrorist attacks” and “saved lives”.  Of course, because all the details of the program are classified, we’ll never see any proof that such claims are true.  What a conundrum.  Frankly, I know enough about government sponsored terrorism to understand that even if PRISM thwarted an attack, our clandestine alphabet bureaucracy has created far more death and destruction than they have ever prevented. 

In the end, I couldn’t care less if PRISM stopped a terrorist act.  The point is irrelevant.  Our civil liberties are not subject to the supposed success of an unconstitutional government action.  The promise of safety does not nullify our rights, nor does it give government capital to do whatever it pleases. 

Comfort Means Death

I believe the establishment has moved away from the denial of so many abuses because it hopes to convince us that this is the “new normal” of our society.  They want us to embrace the surveillance state and become comfortable in its cradling arms.  I do not plan to get “comfortable”.  When political villains no longer fear the exposure of their villainy, it is time to start worrying. 

There has been a lot of unrestrained conjecture on the motivations of the suddenly world-famous Edward Snowden.  The fact is we still know very little about him, and for now I will reserve judgment; partially because I know that one day people like myself could be accused of “fomenting controlled opposition” or “working for the enemy”.  Our culture has become so cynical that we refuse to believe that anyone does anything anymore out of a sense of principle. 

Whatever Snowden’s original intentions, I find his admitted reasons inspiring.  When asked why he forced the truth of PRISM into the mainstream, Snowden replied:

"I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things ... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under…"

"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that [career and former life] because I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which was done in their name and that which is done against them…I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions. I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

The surveillance machine is the key to control.  When each person feels the eyes of the state constantly upon them, dissent and rebellion becomes unthinkable.  At the very least, those of us who are aware of the great Orwellian shift before us must take an immovable stand. 

The right to privacy is an inherent right of natural law. No individual or government system should be allowed legal precedence to invade my privacy, and all people have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty rather than guilty until proven innocent. As an individual, I do not owe the collective, or the government, a constant update on whether or not I am a "threat". In fact, I don't owe anyone anything.

If someone continues to treat me as an enemy and constantly tramples my natural right to privacy, I am going to fight them, and I am going to hurt them, perhaps mortally. This is what people who support surveillance society need to understand; there will be consequences for their trespasses against the natural rights of others.

There can be no negotiation.  There can be no compromise.  The surveillance state must be erased.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
One And Only's picture

In the end, no man or woman gets a pass.

Free Corzine.

Everyone in "the circle" get's a pass. Support the establishment or be squashed by the heavy hand of conservative groups being the target of this administration's IRS (especially during an ELECTION CYCLE)

Who's gone to jail? Who's been fired? Who's resigned over ANY of these scandals? NO ONE.

...yes sheep, you are free. Says the wolf.

SMG's picture

Stop kidding around.  This is tyranny.  Revolt now or be a slave forever.  It's your choice.

One And Only's picture


Too late for that buddy.

What America used to be is a forgone conclusion.

I'd love to call what I'm doing right now free speech. But the NSA is recording it and can use my negative views on the government against me in the future, either to slander me or imprison me for speaking against the state and being a "terrorist"

Quite sure I'm already on Obama's IRS hit list.

We have freedumb. If you think you're free you're really dumb.

runningman18's picture

It doesn't have to be that way.  Freedom ends when every last freedom fighter is dead.  We aren't dead yet, and tyrants die just as easy as anyone else...

One And Only's picture

Freedom is fucking dead idiot.

Don't you get it?

How are we free?

DaddyO's picture

Roll over Tool, you're already defeated!!


DaddyO's picture

Oh BTW, another great essay by Brandon Smith! Bravo!!


runningman18's picture

Freedom is not "dead", you are just a simpering nihilist unwilling to defend it. 

One And Only's picture

Defend WHAT?

There is NO FREEDOM anymore.

runningman18's picture

Just because YOU don't have any concept of what true freedom is doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignorant.  Of course, you are more than welcome to get on your knees and service the elites if that's what floats your boat... 

One of these is not like the others..'s picture


There's all the freedom I need inside my head.

Pretty much translates to freedom outside of it too.

In my freedom I choose only to work when I want to on what I want to in order to directly meet my needs.

My freedom sets me free from the tyranny of having to make sure I have enough cash to meet my needs.

Sometimes I generate a surplus over and above what I need, then I am free to share.

Simple. The hard part has been finding people who actually can exchange me anything useful for my services.

Most of you have nothing to give. It's either been taken already, or you have already withdrawn your spirit of generosity.

Revolution involves burning ideas, more than it requires burning buildings!

P.S. The post below mine is replying to the one above.

FreedomGuy's picture

You are free to do as you are told by your superiors in the government. It is their job to manage your life and your job to be a small cog in their big plan.

sunaJ's picture

I was a police officer for 10 years, held a TS clearance, working much of that time with the FBI. I was astounded by what went on post-911, including working at least one FISA warrant.

When interrorgating a suspect, it always amazed me how often a suspect would give up their right to remain silent. Usually, their willingness to talk would help build the case against them. But they never had to speak to us. We would have to advise them of their right to remain silent (by law and precedent), because that is how careful you have to be about constitutional rights. In the current attack on the right to privacy, there has been no advice of rights, neither the assumption that the constitutional right is protected. You are just expected to give up the right (you HAVE TO give up the right to privacy). This runs counter to decades of court rulings on constitutional rights. In their paradigm, everyone is a suspect. There defense to this point is that it is necessary to protect everyone (hogwash). If they asked, I would tell them to go Fuck themselves. If it is anything like the right to remain silent, then you will have many (over 50%), that are always willing to piss away their rights. Even private companies advise you of their silly (but money-making policies) of privacy intrusion. But our government seems to think that they don't even have to ask, and they have much less legal standing to collect any info on citizens. It is this way because you can always walk away from a private company, but it is assumed that you are never allowed to walk away from your own government (unless they want revolution).

So, at this point, are they going to fight the obvious violation of fundamental rights, or are they going to relinquish their little snooping toys? Well, I have an annual 80 billion dollar bet that they will fight, since that is a HUGE lobby, and the vast majority of our politicians seem more interested in this money and subsequent pay-offs than protecting the voice of the people.

As Orwell warns us, always look to language for the creep of totalitarianism.  Remember what a "terrorist" was a decade ago?  Watch how big government defines it now.  There is unprecedented creep, which may include speaking out, holding contrarian views, or, in the case of Edward Snowden, EXPOSING the corruption (in this case, he is a traitor).  Watch yourselves.


Bastiat's picture

Thanks for your post.

TheReplacement's picture

You are as free as you choose to be.  If you choose to believe you are not free and act accordingly you are a slave.  If you choose to believe you are free and act freely you are free. 

You cannot be given freedom.  It is something you have to take and hold on to every day.

"Live free or die!"

YC2's picture

I decided I'm finally going I be "that guy" after I hit some PRs in the gym today to this song -

Meshuggah - The Demon's Name is Surveilance

Today this song scored me a 110 kilo clean and jerk, 405 lb squat, and 240 lb incline bench, all personal records or close. Who knew it was such a topical tune!

bunnyswanson's picture

The Fixx Red Skies at Night

The Fixx Stand or Fall

Crying parents tell their children
If you survive don't do as we did
A son exclaims there'll be nothing to do to
Her daughter says she'll be dead with you

While foreign affairs are screwing rotten,
Line morale has hit rock bottom

Dying embers stand forgotten
Talks of peace were being trodden

Stand or fall, state your peace tonight

Is this the value of our existence
Should we proclaim with such persistence
Our destiny relies on conscience
Red or blue, what's the difference

An empty face reflects extinction
Ugly scars divide the nation
Desecrate the population
There will be no exhaultation

Stand or fall, state your peace tonight
It's the Euro << theatre >>

The Fixx - Saved by Zero

(chasing after my dreams  disowned me,

Maybe someday, (I'll be) saved by zero,

I'll be more together

Stretched by fewer thoughts that leave me chasing

after my dream disowned me, loaded with danger.

Holding onto words that touch me.
I will conquer space around me.

So maybe I'll win, saved by zero.

INXS is good too.  :)  I miss the 80s


Lady Heather...UNCLE's picture

The surveillance state will not go without a fight. Look for a false flag event in 3...2...

LetThemEatRand's picture

Seems like the most likely scenario.  They have to justify what they are doing because a vocal minority is starting to take notice.  They (we) will be shut down if there is another "terrorist" attack.   The Boston thing was probably a trial run, but a lot of people are saying, "hey, if they didn't stop that...."  They are going to need a bigger one.  Sad state of affairs that I really believe they will do this.

ZerOhead's picture

Domestic security spending is already well over $75 billion per year and even with the help of the Russians and PRISM they couldn't put 2+2 together...

They probably should wait at least a couple of months before they let the next attack happen... wouldn't want the citizens to think they are spectacularly incompetent in addition to being complete control freaks after all...

ZerOhead's picture

Then later we find out the boys were on CIA and FBI 'watchlists' for years...

And then things really get concerning...


While the establishment media predictably attempts to make the serial lies told by the FBI, and both FBI and CIA’s involvement and foreknowledge of the suspects years before the Boston attacks, appear to be just an innocent bureaucratic foul-up, former-FBI translator Sibel Edmonds reported in incredible detail what most likely transpired, even before revelations of the CIA’s involvement became public.

In a 45 minute interview on the Corbett Report, Edmonds explained that multiple warnings by Russian investigators to the FBI were likely ignored because the CIA was in all probability using Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an asset to travel to Russia’s Caucasus region and make contact with US-backed terrorists.

Lost Word's picture

Either the brothers were false flag conspirators, or patsies set up to falsely take the blame.

XitSam's picture

They will "prevent" the event, and it will be revealed that it was PRISM that the key to preventing.

Damn, I promised myself I wouldn't respond to a Brandon Smith post tonight.

ZerOhead's picture


They may have to stop one of their planned attacks just to prove the system is necessary. When is their budget up for review?

LetThemEatRand's picture

I wish it were that simple.  The sheep are starting to question the "stopped" attacks. 

Go Tribe's picture

When the sheep find they have no defense, they'll turn on those who do. Don't trust the sheep.

XitSam's picture

The sheep are still sheep. Will 47 million on food stamps rock the boat? This is a temporary setback, did anything happen over NDAA? Drones killing innocent 16 year old US citizens? Congress is just a smoke screen for tyranny. Two steps forward, one step back. 

FBI requests for records under Patriot Act have increased 1,000% in just four years
bunnyswanson's picture

The records may hold key evidence to what really transpired during the events in question.  communications may have been retained and if that is so, it may be an opportunity to request access to them, if you can find a court not on the ayroll, that is.

Coldplay Politik (Open Your Eyes)

Lost Word's picture

A court that will give you NSA secret material files?

FOIA requests like that are always denied.

Pretended transparency, pretended freedom, pretended democracy.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

one day soon, you will have to choose a side;

I pick the side with the most guns.  I did not say it was the right choice, just not the one where you end up in a forced labor camp and then smoke up a chimney.

ZerOhead's picture

I pick the side with the most guns.

Very practical. It's my choice as well... mainly because human nature being what it is and all... whatever we might replace the existing structure with would likely be just as if not even more so corrupt.

Just remember what SOB's Trotsky then Lenin then Stalin became... the Tzarsist system was absolutely 'enlightened' by comparison...

Let's just do what we can to pressure TPTB to finally do the right thing...

ZerOhead's picture

Tough crowd tonite fish...

Go Tribe's picture

No one is going to start a revolution. We will all be sitting on our guns and ammo when the Constitution is burned in DC and our last penny is given to Uncle Sam. For an uprising to occur, someone has to start shooting and the others have to see them as having moral authority.

More likely, this revolution is waged by computer and currency. Not sure us peons have an advantage there.

Lost Word's picture

The People in the USA have more weapons,

but the Government has more powerful weapons.

q99x2's picture

The Federal Government found that the enemy is the American citizen. Somebody call the police.

Iocosus's picture

The mainstream media is on it. Someone wants us to know. This further demoralizes the 1% that might have the will to rebel, and probably would have succeeded. What's left of that 1% will be 'disappeared', legally, for everything is legal to power.

I sincerely hope Putin isn't in on the plan. I still cling to some hope that he will act as a counter-balance.

Down arrows in 3....2...1....

Lost Word's picture

NWO is Global Tyranny.

Russia is one faction within the Tyranny.

If one faction fails, another faction takes control.

Metal Minded's picture

Why Shouldn't I Work for the NSA? (Good Will Hunting) released in 1997 {2:50} -

newengland's picture

Former Prime Mentalist of Britain Gordon Brown the paedophile was accused in the Press of using '1984' as an instruction manual rather than a warning, and Britain suffers still while his cohorts paedophile New Labour architect Peter Mandelson and Tony Bliar make millions by taking instructions from their puppeteer Trilateral Commission, and its Bilderberg do Cameron and William Vague now...also excusing the Stasi statist new Nazis, same as the old Nazis, funded by international financiers like the Rothschilds, Oppenheimers, Sassoons, Rockefellers, and their Bush pets.

Oppenheimer?! That would be New Labour's Margaret Hodge Oppenheimer MP whose family business evades British tax while mithering others to pay more tax, and she personally was responsible as an MP for hiding the paedophile gang rampant in Islington, London - using Elm Guest House, used by high ranking MPs, civil servants, businessmen, judiciary and priests.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

A right is not a right if you are forced to have to defend it.  If it was a right, it could stand on its own.

XitSam's picture

Twaddle. There will always be those that don't respect others' rights and try to take them away. Even if they are successful in denying anothers' right, the right still exists.

DaddyO's picture

FGB, just the opposite is true! Rights are like muscles, if not exercised then atrophied...thats why we're in the mess of today methinks.


Urban Redneck's picture

A little over 20 years ago, at the dawn of the Internet age, the Swiss rebelled against the Leviathan and the Bundespolizei practice of collecting dossiers on Citizens, and in certain instances using them for political purposes.  Citizens were able to request and receive a copy of their police files and the ensuing outrage prompted a domestic reform.  Since that victory, the Leviathan has constructed Onyx locally while the usual partnership of western Statists has continued to build unchecked upon the data collection framework of the UKUSASA.  Given the latest revelations-  the Sins of the Statists need to be examined and reexamined in the various States and new constraints on the States debated.  

As for the US, some common sense that has been ignored and often taken out of context over 200 years, since Shays rebellion and the debates to replace the Articles of Confederation with the current Constitution-  


... Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted...

Thomas Jefferson, Paris 13 November 1787


TheReplacement's picture

By that logic nobody has a right to live since some people kill other people.

jon dough's picture

Some good reading here, dovetails nicely with the above...

"If you live in the United States it may finally be dawning on you that you have something of a problem in the government to which you are now a Subject. In fact, the details of the [NSA Snooping|Verizon Metadata|IRS Political Targeting|Bankruptcy Preference|Fast and Furious|State Department Coverup|Libyan Ambassador|George Takei Facebook Ghostwriting] scandal are meaningless. You are already far too late."

"In fact, given the manner you have quashed the opportunity- almost unique in the history of the species- created by an impossibly rare coexistence of liberty, private property, free markets, the rise of scientific method, and freedom of expression (to name just a few) there is more than a passing argument to be made that your society has squandered one of the greatest intellectual and individualistic fortunes in history."

"You see, for generations now you have collectively built and nurtured a massive, living, metabolizing creature. From the inanimate, intellectual detritus of "progressivism" and your unending and increasingly all-consuming narcissism you have kneaded it into a shapeless husk, pouring in rank mud like "Save the Planet," "Global Warming," "The American Dream of Home Ownership," "The War on Drugs", "Mothers Against Drunk Driving", "The War On Terror", "Speculators", "Too Big To Fail", "The 1%", and of course the essence and spark of its life, "…if it saves just one child." In conjunction with (but far more so than the other buckets of intellectual mud) "…if it saves just one child" has created the Golem of Government."

newengland's picture

Bluntly, it is the Trilateral Commission, not the American people. The Trilateral Commission of old world international rootless cosmopolitan banksters who buy politicians to put a smiley face on their nazionism.

You've got a lot to say for yourself. Care to comment on the emergency powers brought in by Bush, continued by O'bomba, and their continuity of government which allows a secret government to rule the USA, and the world?

Kissinger, Brezinski and that lot are your problem. Expose them, rather than hate ordinary people.

jon dough's picture


Did any of that happen on YOUR watch?

Or wuz youse outta town so you're clean?

JohnG's picture



You should go read the entire post at that link. (Hint: It's a familiar writer.)