
Former Congressman – and Cleveland mayor – Dennis Kucinich wrote a must-read post yesterday:
The Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770, was a catalyst toward the American Revolution. Five civilians were killed by the British soldiers. The Declaration of Independence, in condemning the offenses against liberty by George III, stated:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
- For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states
Indeed, the top expert on the militarization of America’s police forces – Washington Post writer Radley Balko, who has testified to Congress and written books on the subject – confirms that the Founders would have seen the militarized police as an unconstitutional standing army:
Balko starts with the provocative proposition that police as we know them in modern America are unconstitutional. “The Founders and their contemporaries would probably have seen even the early-nineteenth-century police forces as a standing army, and a particularly odious one at that,” Balko writes. “Just before the American Revolution, it wasn’t the stationing of British troops in the colonies that irked patriots in Boston and Virginia; it was the England’s decision to use the troops for everyday law enforcement.”
Balko links that decision to the oft forgotten Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of troops in Americans’ homes against their will during peacetime. The Third Amendment is rarely litigated, and the Supreme Court has never heard a case primarily concerning the amendment, but Balko argues that it was included in the Bill of Rights out of a larger concern that a standing army could be used for the purposes of enforcing the law. “The actual quartering of British troops in the private homes of colonists was rare…It was the predictable fallout from positioning soldiers trained for warfare on city streets, among the civilian populace, and using them to enforce law and maintain order that enraged colonists.”
In a post headlined, “Militarized Police: The Standing Army the Founders Warned About“, New American notes:
In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal last August, Radley Balko presented chilling and convincing evidence of the blurring of the line between cop and soldier:
Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.
Balko rightly connects the menace of the martial police with the decline in liberty and a disintegration of legal boundaries between sheriffs and generals:
Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe’s emperors and monarchs.
A Google search for the following phrase turns up over 250,000 hits, including articles from across the spectrum, such as Newsweek, Daily Kos, the American Conservative and Truth-Out:
“standing army” Ferguson
The same search yields thousands of images. A comparison of photos of soldiers in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan and police in Ferguson shows they are virtually indistinguishable.
Indeed:
Someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment[ed] that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone” …
(Background.)
Remember, the Founding Fathers repeatedly warned against standing armies.
Of course, it would be bad enough if the militarized police forces were only used in genuine emergencies. But Balko notes that the authorities have become “very antagonistic toward the very idea of free speech and the First Amendment“. And militarized swat teams are being used against people who commit copyright infringement … or credit card fraud. They’re being used “for routine warrant service in … nonviolent crimes“.
And Balko notes:
SWAT teams today are overwhelmingly used to investigate people who are still only suspected of committing nonviolent consensual crimes.
And Ellen Brown argues that the police are being militarized to protect of the financial elites:
When depositors cannot access their bank accounts to get money for food for the kids, they could well start breaking store windows and helping themselves. Worse, they might plot to overthrow the financier-controlled government. Witness Greece, where increasing disillusionment with the ability of the government to rescue the citizens from the worst depression since 1929 has precipitated riots and threats of violent overthrow.
Fear of that result could explain the massive, government-authorized spying on American citizens, the domestic use of drones, and the elimination of due process and of “posse comitatus” (the federal law prohibiting the military from enforcing “law and order” on non-federal property). Constitutional protections are being thrown out the window in favor of protecting the elite class in power.
Postscript: The Founding Fathers also fought the Revolutionary War for other reasons, such as stopping:
Interestingly, 3 times as many American colonists supported King George of England during the Revolutionary War as support our own Congress today.
Americans of all stripes oppose the militarization of U.S. police forces.
For example:
So why does Congress continue to approve militarization? For the same reason that Congress members vote for NSA spying on Americans and go easy on Wall Street criminals: money.
Maplight reports that congress critters opposing Congressman Grayson’s bill to demilitarize police receive 73% more money than those voting for it:

International Business Times explains:
The group’s new report looked at a June congressional vote on legislation, offered by U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., that would have blocked the Pentagon from spending resources on transferring military hardware to local police agencies. The bill was defeated 62-355.
According to data compiled by Maplight, the lawmakers “voting to continue funding the 1033 Program have received, on average, 73 percent more money from the defense industry than representatives voting to defund it.” In all, the average lawmaker voting against the bill received more than $50,000 in campaign donations from the defense industry in the last two years. The report also found that of the 59 lawmakers who received more than $100,000 from defense contractors in the last two years, only four voted for Grayson’s legislation.
Good ‘ole fashion corruption …
TruthDig reported last year:
“Did the FBI ignore, or even abet, a plot to assassinate Occupy Houston leaders?” asks investigative reporter Dave Lindorff at WhoWhatWhy. “What did the Feds know? Whom did they warn? And what did the Houston Police know?”
A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Washington, D.C.-based Partnership for Civil Justice Fund yielded an FBI document containing knowledge of a plot by an unnamed group or individual to kill “leaders” of the Houston chapter of the nonviolent Occupy Wall Street movement.
Here’s what the document said, according to WhoWhatWhy:
An identified [DELETED] as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors (sic) in Houston, Texas if deemed necessary. An identified [DELETED] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [DELETED] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles. (Note: protests continued throughout the weekend with approximately 6000 persons in NYC. ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests have spread to about half of all states in the US, over a dozen European and Asian cities, including protests in Cleveland (10/6-8/11) at Willard Park which was initially attended by hundreds of protesters.)
Paul Kennedy of the National Lawyers Guild in Houston and an attorney for a number of Occupy Houston activists arrested during the protests said he did not hear of the sniper plot and expressed discontent with the FBI’s failure to share knowledge of the plan with the public. He believed that the bureau would have acted if a “right-wing group” plotted the assassinations, implying that the plan could have originated with law enforcement.
“[I]f it is something law enforcement was planning,” Kennedy said, “then nothing would have been done. It might seem hard to believe that a law enforcement agency would do such a thing, but I wouldn’t put it past them.”
He added that the phrase “if deemed necessary,” which appeared in the bureau’s report, further suggests the possibility that some kind of official organization was involved in the plan.
Texas law officials have a history of extreme and inappropriate violence.
***
Kennedy has seen law enforcement forces attempt to secretly entrap Occupy activists and disrupt their activities in the city. He represented seven people who were charged with felonies stemming from a protest whose organizing group had been infiltrated by undercover officers from the Austin Police department. The felony charges were dropped when police involvement with a crucial part of that action was discovered.
A second document obtained in the same FOIA request suggested the assassination plans might be on the plotters’ back burner in case Occupy re-emerges in the area.
When WhoWhatWhy sent an inquiry to FBI headquarters in Washington, officials confirmed that the first document is genuine and that it originated in the Houston FBI office. Asked why solid evidence of a plot never led to exposure of the perpetrators’ identity or arrest, Paul Bresson, head of the FBI media office, deflected the question. According to WHoWhatWhy, he said:
The FOIA documents that you reference are redacted in several places pursuant to FOIA and privacy laws ….
Lindorff wants us to note that “the privacy being ‘protected’ in this instance (by a government that we now know has so little respect for our privacy) was of someone or some organization that was actively contemplating violating other people’s Constitutional rights—by murdering them.”
***
When the Houston Police department was asked about its knowledge of the plot, public affairs officer Keith Smith said it “hadn’t heard about it” and directed future questions to the Houston FBI office.
The obvious question to ask in attempting to determine the identities of the planners is this: Who has sniper training? A number of Texas law enforcement organizations received special training from Dallas-based mercenary company Craft International, which has a contract for training services with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The company was founded by a celebrated
Army sniper who was killed by a combat veteran he accompanied to a shooting range.
Remington Alessi, an Occupy Houston activist who played a prominent role in the protests and hails from a law enforcement family, agrees with attorney Kennedy that the plot likely did not originate with a right-wing group. “If it had been that, the FBI would have acted on it,” he said. “I believe the sniper attack was one strategy being discussed for dealing with the occupation.”
A new Army report may shed light on the sniper issue. As Paul Joseph Watson reports:
A document released by the U.S. Army details preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.
***
The 132-page document, titled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances (PDF), was written in April 2014 and recently obtained by Public Intelligence.
The document makes it clear that the techniques detailed therein are to be applied both outside and inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”
***
The most shocking aspect of the document is the fact that it describes the deployment of a “lethal response” directed against “unarmed civilians,” including “sniper response” and “small arms direct fire.”
Under the heading “sniper response,” the document states, “Ensure that target leaders or troublemakers are targeted,” in addition to a passage which states, “Exploit the psychological effect of an attack.”

Under the heading “small arms direct fire,” the manual states, “Escalate gradually, starting with a small caliber, single round and work up to a large caliber, automatic.”
Another graphic which depicts “escalation of trauma” directs soldiers how to use “riot batons” in order to cause the necessary level of injury or death to the subject. “Deadly force final target areas” include the back of the neck, the solar plexus, the neck, the spine and the head.

***
Although the document makes reference to the Constitutional rights of American citizens it goes on to stress that such protections are null and void under a state of emergency, asserting that Posse Comitatus, which is supposed to limit the power of the federal government to use military personnel domestically, “does not apply” under declared “emergency authority” or “When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists.”
It is important to stress that this training manual applies to U.S. Army operations in foreign countries as well as domestically on U.S. soil. Indeed, section 2-18 of the document goes into detail about domestic protests such as the 1999 anti-WTO demonstration in Seattle.
And see this.
Did the U.S. government deploy snipers to the peaceful Occupy protests in order to “engage in sniper attacks against protestors … if deemed necessary”, and to “kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles”? If so, what would have made sniper attacks “necessary” in the eyes of the government … if they gained momentum and were on the verge of being successful?
If these sound like over-the-top questions, please remember that:
- Highly-militarized, federally-coordinated police used such brutal violence to break up the Occupy protests (see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this) that the Egyptian military used the crack down on Occupy as justification for the murder of protesters in Tahir Square, Egypt
- The government and big banks joined forces to violently crush the Occupy protests
- Militarized police were deployed in Miami during a WTO protest in 2003, at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, at the Republican National Convention in 2008, in Miami in 2011, and at many other protests
The CIA used snipers in Ukraine, and if the American Government had a plan to deal with Occupy demonstrators on Wall Street, that plan would have come directly from CIA executive brass. Moreover, private security firms are contracted to provide security to Universities and educators such as Harvard and MIT where administrators utilize private security to menace and intimidate people like Dr. Aaron Swartz when they confront discriminatory practices in academia. JSTOR and MIT
simply pick up the phone when anyone attempts to make inroads
into their crony capitalist domains. The MIC has affiliation with every criminal in the entire world and when they need people killed it is only a matter of a phone call to one of their in-house assassins.
OCCUPY THE CIA - OCCUPY THE MIC - OCCUPY EVERYTHING
The founding fathers would have had nuclear weapons and an army to fight the globalists by now.
I may be alone in this. but treasonous CONgressmen, past or present, do not speak for me and have no credibility.
The militarization of the police is covered under Article 3, section 3 of the Law of the Land, the Constitution.
An American, not US subject.
Article 3, Section 3, is Judicial Branch, Treason.
3rd Amendment is about Quartering of Soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
We could add some other reasons to the list, such as no taxation without fair representation, unreasonable searches and seizures, and control of our money supply by private banks. Our government is nothing like what the Founding Fathers envisioned, although they certainly feared it might eventually happen. They did understand human nature.
"no taxation without fair representation"
As for taxation without representation, try this on for size: A government like the DC US that is operating outside of its legal constrictions is criminal and all associated with it are criminals.
Since the government is now a criminal organization, it does not represent us, the American people, and therefore all taxes demanded by it are, by definition, "taxation without representation."
An American, not US subject.
One of the Duties of the US President is to Brief the Congress on the "State of the Union".
Seems to me this is Grounds for either Treason or Impeachments as our fake government statistic are meaningless to the US Household and promoting the General Welfare of the Nation.
The US Constitution Preamble state this. 5th Paragraph, To promote the General Welfare - to help promote a higher standard of Living for the people of the United States through Better Government.
Specifically the Statements about US GDP, US Inflation, Unemployment, Social Stability, Future Tax Base, Future Consumption, Cost of War (the Last ones), Current Velocity of money... and statements about higher Individual Tax Revenues being a boon when we know that payments for Welfare, MEDICARE/MEDICAID, and Social Security are increasing more quickly... and corporate tax revenue is falling by most measures.
Also to your point, Lobbying = no Representation, and Federal Judges know this, so Treason by US Judges has to be on the Table.
"Just following orders." has never, and will never, be an acceptable excuse. You cannot escape your personal responsibility to uphold your understanding of Right. Everyone will be held acountable for their actions.
There's a problem at ground level with the people enforcing these actions. The police & military come from the same background of lifelong indoctrination/propaganda which has dumbed down the population and made them apathetic & ignorant. This was no accident. "Schooling' & t.v. and other media have been used as weapons against the American people. Most of them have no knowledge of any substance when it comes to their rights and the US Constitution. Hell, most American adults haven't read a single serious book after leaving high school or college. 'Patriotism' is about flag waving and taking long weekends to celebrate certain holidays. They wouldnt give up watching t.v. to spend a couple weeks actually reading about the history and founding principles of the country. (Do your t.v. sets take up more wall space than your book shelves ?)
When it comes to the military & police, the situation may be even worse. High energy, physical type individuals may be more interested in 'action' than in asking hard questions. Often ex high school jocks. 2/3 of the population are 'rules follower' types who respect whatever 'authority figure' that they were indoctrinated to obey; such types likely make up an even higher percentage of the police & military. In the case of the police, there's indications that the more intelligent aren't wanted on the job. Jefferson warned that it takes an informed people to maintain a democratic republic. Well, the American people have failed and let criminal psychopaths take their wealth & freedom. They let them take over 'schooling'. They used t.v. as a babysitter for their young tykes. This loss of liberty happened over many generations:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/27590/who-reads-books
http://www.mintpressnews.com/can-someone-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/192106/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/an-officer-corps-that-ca...
I had this conversation on another thread a while back: "rights".
When the founding fathers discussed rights, they fought for them. They were fighting against the established order. That is a critical thing to remember. They were not fighting for some rights they thought the British were promoting or protecting. They fought because it was preferable to them as Human Beings to die fighting and free than to live in fear and repression. The Rights inherent in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are not something the government gives you. They are inherent in the human condition. The founders knew they were right, because they knew that their God would judge them to be on the correct side of "Right vs. Wrong", regardless of what the established legal authority said. Rights for a population are what that population is willing to die to defend. The majority of people in this population have not fought for any rights in a long time. They now expect them to come from the government itself. When that changes, and people are willing to fight against the government itself for their God-Given rights, things will change, and fast! But not before then. Never before.
An American today can live a happy life without ever exercising rights.
In the interests of full-disclosure, I must note that I am an American citizen, but I personally have only once been in a situation where my rights were directly infringed (not including NSA shenanigans), and then only in a minor way. As such, I view what is happening around us with alarm, but I confess to belonging to the large group who do not fight for our rights. For me, the fight has basically never been made personal. It does not surprise me in the least, along the same lines, that the black community is where the spark is strongest, as that is the population where their rights are still being explicitly violated in the most unforgiveable way (stop and frisk is an abomination) - regardless of what we are being led to believe with the multiculturalism BS being presented through the media. It will take a lot to get me truly engaged, but at the same time, having people like me not a safe group to count on for the government is a fundametal loss to them that I don't think they will understand until push comes to shove, and they cannot call on us to defend them.
The Nuremberg Principles are guidelines for determining what is a war-crime:
Principle IV is:
An American, not US subject.
I thought the Occupy/sniper story was far fetched. Then a sniper appeared in broad daylight @ Ferguson.
Snipers 1, America 0.
As GW cited, the use of snipers against unarmed civilians is expressly discussed in the Army's Civil Disturbances manual. This isn't leaked classified shit, either. They want us to know. Along with the diagrams of how to use clubs to inflict pain, or to disable, or to kill. They want us to know that they will decide when US citizens need to be killed to preserve the advantages of the Elites.
The Occupy stuff was coordinated with the Finance industry, from the White House, with the involvement of mercenary companies. There's a reason all the statements issued by "local" law enforcement used the same verbiage, the same apocryphal stories of mass rapes and drug-dealing and violence to justify assaults on civilians. The whole thing was coordinated out of the West Wing. Still is. Eric Holder's vaccilating response to the Ferguson stuff shows they haven't yet decided on mass killings, but it's certainly not "off the table."
The knowledge doesn't change the situation we're in, but it can help us understand and make our own decisions.
This week in Minneapolis we've got Navy SEALS practicing urban warfare after dark in our downtowns (Minneapolis and St. Paul, too). They're racing around in Blackhawk assault choppers, flying low and careening around buildings. They never told anyone they were going to do it, because, you know, loose lips sink ships or some god-damned thing. So naturally people freaked out when they saw all these black choppers filled with mercenaries flying past their apartment balconies and rappelling onto rooftops, and the 9-1-1 lines lit up. It got worse when the cops refused to answer any questions at all, and it seemed that some branches of local law enforcement hadn't been told about it, either. On Monday night/Tuesday morning, the story was that it was a local cop training exercise with some Federal assistance. Why our street cops need to be trained in urban assault tactics nobody would say because, you know, national security. By yesterday afternoon (Tuesday), the story had changed. Now we're being told it's all strictly Department of Defense, and the local cops have nothing at all to do with it except contributing some local knowledge.
We're a majority-white, Northern, very calm, peaceful safe and clean urban area. Like most Scandinavian/Northern European populations, we are big on clean, open government. A few years back we sent a City Councilman to prison for 18 months because his wife accepted $400 worth of granite countertops for her bathroom from the head of the plumbers' union. When the Chief of Police (Bob Olson) pioneered these fascist tactics against a bio-engineering protest at the ISAG convention in Minneapolis, and the cops rioted and attacked journalists and legal observers, we kept the outrage civil, but Bob Olson got shit-canned at the next opportunity.
I'm sure this exercise was planned months ago. I'm sure the quid pro quo is that our local cops will get all kinds of military equipment they have no idea how to use, other than drag it around to street fairs to let little kids climb on it. But the local populace here is not at all happy about this. The politicians, in which group I include Police administration, seems completely confused and caught off guard that we are not cool with this bullshit, particularly with what's going on in Ferguson.
Our State Fair opens tomorrow. It's a huge deal in Minnesota; something to do right before school resumes. I'm going, with the family. No doubt there will be all kinds of killing hardware and cops dressed up in that weird homo-erotic sci-fi bondage Warrior gear. I plan to make fun of them loudly and encourage others to do so as well. From now on, these guys need to be mocked. They are trained to fear us and to feed off the fear they provoke by dressing like RoboCop DeSade. They need to have us laugh at them and question their sexuality. They're dressed inappropriately, like clowns. At a State Fair, cops should be wearing short sleeves, eating corn dogs and drinking Slurpies. They should congratulate prize-winning 4-H'ers. They should not be dressed like the more disturbing parts of a Heinlein novel.
As always, nobody has ever been enslaved without their permission. Not to say the alternatives to enslavement were attractive, but a choice has been made. Time to become conscious of that choice and re-visit it. And time to vote out Sheriffs and Prosecutors and Mayors who want in on this Fascist play-acting gravy train. I'll be doing it here in Minneapolis.
"...Like most Scandinavian/Northern European populations, we are big on clean, open government..."
Your 'clean, open government' -specifically your mayor and police chief - INVITED the 160th SOAR to practice over your city. They would never have shown up if the mayor refused. If the mayors don't have a good answer for WHY they requested Stazi intimidation conditioning drills and refused to cancel them after Ferguson, then recall their ass. No military unit in this country needs proficiency training in anything over a modern U.S. city unless it considers U.S. citizens to be the enemy. The anti-terrorism excuse was bullshit since 2001 - the DHS Stazi, the 160th SOAR and the rest of the military have saved NO ONE from terrorism since then. Their only possible mission inside the U.S. is to protect the federal government and their cronies from the people.
"...As always, nobody has ever been enslaved without their permission..."
Every time you vote or let them pass another law, you explicitly give them permission. Wake up. Voting and the law are your chains.
"...And time to vote out Sheriffs and Prosecutors and Mayors who want in on this Fascist play-acting gravy train. I'll be doing it here in Minneapolis..."
Yeah... because that has always worked out so well in the past.
+1. Excellent response. Unfortunately without risking one's own life (and one's family's) the available actions are easily ignored. We're not yet (yet!) to the point where we have nothing to lose but our chains. Maybe some in Ferguson, MO are at that point, but until the safe middle class feels that way and sees the futility of "the process," it's going to continue. What's notable is that people in a docile place like Minneapolis, which still more or less works, are starting to get pissed about this.
Sorry man but I know the Twin Cities politics scene having lived in the suburbs and the inner cities all vote in liberals. They want moar statism and more green bullshit undertakings like green line. God bless the protesters who were there on the inaugural green line warning about the costs this leaves to future generations. Many in the inner cities there have their heads in the clouds and love big government. They voted in a Muslim for congress.
Northern minnesota people get it aside from many in often union/liberal college town Duluth.
very very strong post
I'll never watch Police Academy the same now...
Founding fathers where lacking 200 years of "corruption conditioning", "leaders" today would rather have a new Yacht than a fight.... Game over for Justice and Freedom.
I seem to remember even President Jefferson mentioning something about the need for Revolution every now and then to right the ship.
It's about trusting. The same old fools think that this time with an all-powerful government and police it'll be different. The problem, now, is that the police, the judges, and the DA's have made themselves more equal pigs. Anyone who has made a complaint against police or judges or DA's know that they go no where. The poor blacks in Ferguson know that any complaint against the police,judges or DA's goes no where. The media even covers them up. It's the same, if you're white, your complaint goes no where and the media refuses to report it. Why should people in Ferguson trust the police and the government media this time? The police/judge/media/government system is corrupt, evil and self-serving. This not about whether the killing of Brown was justified or malevolent; it's about a corrupt government system which cannot be trusted.
Why are the police not stopping looting? Why do the police not record everything? Why do federal and local judges (in most all jurisdictions) refuse to record court proceedings? Why does the FBI refuse to record interrogations? They don't record, because their systems are corrupt and cannot withstand scrutiny.
All government is corrupted by more power. All police are corrupted by more power. Trust in government never improves government. Trusting in the police never improves the police. Trusting in the media is stupidity.
Trust is a vice of the lazy thinker. The founding fathers did not trust government. When will the sheeple ever learn?
"The founding fathers did not trust government. When will the sheeple ever learn?"
It all boils down to this. This country has lost touch with its roots.
All government is corrupted by more power.
People are corrupted by power. The government super-structure, inadequately checked by the lulled and complicit masses, is just an enabler.
Corruption has its origins from within, the enabling entities are veils.
Careers: Internment/Resettlement Specialist (31E)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXlsLnUTjg#t=153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynTUL2zTQMg#t=124
Now if I was a government with a secret Air Force Weather Control program and was considering building "New US Wealth" out of land set aside for National Parks and land near our mountains that surely contain mining wealth... I might just
- Phase 1 Implement an Army Relocation Program while creating fear about Climate Change
- Phase 2 would be "Sever Drought" & Water Shortage in Western States through forced weather changes
- Phase 3 would be "power & Water shortages in a wider area of implementation, Institutionalization of "Relocation Programs"
- Phase 4 is moving Industry into cleared areas, leasing to corporations, allowing foreign bankers and creditors access to newly opened lands
.
That was a genuine tour de force, George!
Beautiful.
Thanks for the work--the DAMN hard work--you do, man.
"Goddammit, Butters! what did I say about shooting guys in the dick?"
eric cartman
After you buy a new car, it doesn't stay new. It needs the occasional oil change, service, engine overhaul ...
Want to fix this car? Simple. Take the radiator cap off, move the car, pull up a working car that has no radiator cap and put it on. Viola!
yeah, this goes back for generations. A Sheriff's office is also unconstitutional. We are a warring nation and birthed on war and keep earning our birthright.
It absolutely blows my mind to see these cops walking down the street, with guns raised at "ready to fire".
That, in and of itself, is all the proof you need that we are the enemy. These fuckers NEED to be taught who they work for.
Let me remind you that when law enforcement levels a weapon and paints a bead (laser dot) on a citizen without probable cause it is assault with a deadly weapon.
In order to activate the dot the hand has to be in the firing position.
You have the right to defend yourself from the apprehension of deadly harm (absent probable cause above).
One less "bad cop" when you do.
Yeah, but if you're going to defend yourself against that one, you'll have a swarm of them after you.
Last I heard, the ratio of "Little People" to cops was in excess of 500 to 1. If only 3% stand up at the same time, they are toast...
Gimme an effing break. Picking up trash is more dangerous than being a cop:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/11/12/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-am...
They're fat assed Statist bureaucrats nothing more. Precious tender little fat assed Statist bureaucrats. The only thing scarier than a Statist bureaucrat with a badge is a Statist bureaucrat in a robe. I think the U.S. Military will stand with the Citizens against the USURPERS OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Let God sort them out.
OBTW: All of you that have taken oaths on the Constitution know that you are charged to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. aaaand, alll you TLA goons that sleaze around ZH sweeping up user names remember this: You too took this oath and you WILL be held accountable when the time comes. We've spent the last 70 years hunting down and prosecuting the last batch of fascist asshats that wormed thier way into power and we will spend the next 70 years doing the same to this batch.
Strangely, the most dangerous job rated by fatality per employee is POTUS. The assasination rate is about 3 per 40-some employees, about 7.5%.
Also noticed the list omits Formula 1 pilots, who also die at much higher rate than any job on the list.
The list comprises more normal jobs than the two I mentioned, but still...
been a cop, long ago, things were not like today..LBJ did not work his war on poverty back then, that changed the dynamics of black gettos. cops are lazy, want to go home unharmed and alive each day...so when they train them to look like the above pics show...well they have been terrified of the citizens, they fear us per training..so being lazy and scared and of average IQ they will use military type tactics to feel secure..this is by design, and much like finance and the gutting of our economy in usa, part of the plan.
The cops aren't firing enough.
The first rioter to throw a ROCK OR A BOMB SHOULD GET SHOT. iF YOU'RE STANDING NEXT TO HIM, INSTEAD OF BEING IN A "SAFE" PLACE, THEN YOU COULD GET SHOT, TOO.
Not all cops are bad. Not even a majority of cops are bad.
ALL these looting, stealing, burning, bomb throwing rioters ARE bad.
Hey GW,
Long time reader/mostly lurker here. I just wrote an essay about Antony Sutton and his approach to modern history and was hoping to submit it for consideration. I have no idea how to go about doing that, so I am wondering if you could let me know. Thanks!
d_senti,
I'm only a guest poster - not a mod - at ZH. You'll have to submit to Tyler.
My own blog is WashingtonsBlog.com, and my contact info is there on the right side.
What an atrocity.
The cops in Ferguson think they are Israeli military in Gaza.
They seem to want to pick a fight!
There are hundreds of cops standing there with shotguns and rifles pistols,
treating everyone like a criminal. Surely presumed guilty.
Ordering, RUDELY, people to do whatever they say. "Media" go here, "media" go there.
Anyone else will simply "be arrested". No rights of citizenship around there.
And it would be the same anywhere else in the counrty I'd bet.
Give us back the USA!!!
Demilitarize the cops everywhere.
You guys kill me !!!
Got consistency ?
2 weeks ago you were blaming the "media" for misleading the public.
Today you're crying about how unfairly they are treated.
The guys catching the heat on the front lines are not with the MSM. They are with smaller independent outfits. It's actually been going on for years, but only now in Ferguson is the evidence becoming so obvious that it cannot be buried anymore. Not all media is the same. There is good media out there; it's just supressed, surprise, surprise.
Mainstream calls for more attacks on Journalist at Ferguson since it is in all our interest not to print or record police actions. s/
Journalist have no place printing or recording observations, opinions, or investigations that don't originate from Public Affair Office representatives of the government. It is not only rude, but is damaging to our public confidence. And there is nothing to be gained by digging up old stories of excessive force or excessive punishment for minorities, teens, or even those who were caught with personal use quantities of illegal drugs. s/
US Public Confidence is the number one concern. That is why we use profession public relations firms, Madison Avenue Advertisers, and spend so much time preparing government remarks. The end justifies the means in every case.
This has been proven time and time again by many like the Catholic Church, the Jesuits, the Jewish Government, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Roman Empire, the British Empire,...
unfortunately this would be taken as a sign of weakness at this point... both sides have created the inevitably of conflict... this isn't just a police militarization issue... the fact they have been allowed to militarize must mean they feel justified in doing so. these justifications also need to be examined... without morality on both sides, neither can back down and more blood will pour into the streets
Deer Blind,
Boy did you ever hit the nail on the head. Not just LEOs, but all of the justice department (and it's sycophants) has a severe cultural problem. Culturally inbred, coddled, cloistered, and pandered to, they see themselves as little gods and us a little people. They don't think twice about taking out an unarmed civilian because they don't see themselves as "civilians". Their pseudo-military rank system just makes them look ridiculous.
I think what is described in this article would actually be the trigger. Many of us have wondered how, when there are as many armed citizens as there are, the level of resistance to tyranny in this country has been so low. The truth is that the perceived "level of threat" has never been ramped too high before. Police going into a crowd and batoning people and teargas and pepper spray: those are the tools which, though ugly and dangerous, are now "within the norm" of what people are used to seeing.
The second that the police begin actually killing civilians with rifle fire, I believe the dam would burst. And I wouldn't want to be a cop if the community decided it was open season.
People don't think civil war is possible in this country, but the first event where civilians are killed by anyone found to have acted in an official capacity, all bets are off.