Translate

Saturday, February 13, 2016

THE SOCIALIST COLLECTIVE: BIG BROTHER/FEDS SEEK HOME VISITS, CALLING PARENTS "EQUAL PARTNERS" IN EDUCATION & BRAINWASHING


Feds Announce They Will Raise Your Child

Published on Feb 12, 2016
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default...
Big brother wants to be called Big Daddy now. Paul Joseph Watson writes The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels. The document states “The first step in systemically embedding effective family engagement practices in educational settings is to establish a culture where families are seen as assets and partners in children’s development, learning and wellness. The first two PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE FAMILY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES state

1. Create continuity for children and families. Implement a vision for family engagement that begins prenatally and continues across settings and throughout a child’s developmental and educational experiences.

2. Value equal partnerships between families and professionals. Combine professional expertise with familial expertise to promote shared learning and responsibility for children’s healthy development, learning and wellness. Encourage two-way communication by valuing family input on all aspects of the child’s life and development, including their culture, traditions, and home language.

Principal number 4 states prioritize engagement around children’s social emotional and behavioral health. Engage families around children’s social emotional and behavioral health. Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social emotional and behavioral health. Ensure that children’s social emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant
community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.

The paper describes how government employees will intervene to provide, “monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom,” and that if parents are failing to meet the standards set, “evidence-based parenting interventions” will be made to, “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met.”

Will there be home visits you ask? The document states “Home Visits: To support ongoing relationship building with families, programs and schools should conduct periodic home visits so that teachers and families can get to know each other and communicate about children’s goals, strengths, challenges, and progress. If home visits are not possible for all families, schools or programs should require that teachers or providers and families communicate at the beginning of the year to ensure that the relationship is started in a
positive way.

BRAVE NEW WORLD: GOV Plans Home Visits to Check Compliance
Published on Feb 12, 2016
The federal government is seeking to create a new bureaucracy that would intervene in family life and could even see state-appointed monitors conduct routine home visits to assess a child’s well-being.


Gov't Plan To Destroy The Family Exposed


Govt Announce Your Kids Belong To Them Now!
Published on Feb 13, 2016
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels. http://www.infowars.com/feds-push-new...


FEDS PUSH NEW PLAN FOR HOME VISITS TO CHECK ON PARENTS

Government-appointed monitors 

to assess upbringing of children

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/feds-push-new-plan-for-home-visits-to-check-on-parents/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The federal government is seeking to create a new bureaucracy that would intervene in family life and could even see state-appointed monitors conduct routine home visits to assess a child’s well-being.
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels.
The paper describes how government employees will intervene to provide, “monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom,” and that if parents are failing to meet the standards set, “evidence-based parenting interventions” will be made to, “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met.”
The document reveals how the state will help oversee, “constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health.”
The program bears the hallmarks of a controversial scheme in Scotland, set to take effect later this year, under which a “shadow parent” appointed by the government would monitor the upbringing of every child until the age of 18.
“The document argues that Big Brother needs to know about essentially everything, for the supposed benefit of the child it wants to “partner” in caring for,” writes Alex Newman. “Citing “research,” the policy statement claims that “the institutions where children learn cannot ignore family wellness if they want to … fulfill their mission to prepare children for school and academic success.” In other words, every aspect of family life is now fair game under the pretext of checking “family wellness.”
The document also extends the understanding of the word “family,” to include, “all the people who play a role in the child’s life,” a definition that could include not only teachers but government monitors.
In a related development, the federal government is pushing for a task force to oversee a program under which pediatricians and doctors would, “screen all students over 12 years old regularly for depression and issue prescriptions or treatment as necessary.”
The program would increase the likelihood of teenagers being given dangerous antidepressant drugs such as Prozac and Lexapro.
The idea of children belonging not just to their parents but to a “community” that involves the state is a common theme of collectivist thinking.
That notion was promoted in the video below from 2013 featuring MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, in which she asserted, “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.”
Feds Seek Home Visits, Calling Parents 
"Equal Partners"
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: http://thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/22530-feds-seek-home-visits-calling-parents-equal-partnersrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Big Brother wants to be an “equal partner” with American parents in the raising of their own children, starting before they are even born. He wants to send his agents to your house for “home visits,” too. Believe it or not, two powerful arms of Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), explicitly say so themselves.
In a draft policy statement on “family engagement,” the two unconstitutional bureaucracies openly state their joint position: families are “equal partners” in everything from children's “development” and “education” to their “wellness across all settings.” Virtually no area of family life, including the health and “mental health” of parents, as well as a family's “attitudes” and even its “housing,” would be free from government intrusion under the government's Orwellian vision. Even vague notions of “family wellness,” as defined by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., would be put under a government microscope. "Parenting interventions" will be used to ensure compliance.    
“It is the position of the Departments [of HHS and Education] that all early childhood programs and schools recognize families as equal partners in improving children’s development, learning and wellness across all settings, and over the course of their children’s developmental and educational experiences,” reads the draft policy. And it gets even more bizarre: As defined in the document, family means “all the people who play a role in a child’s life and interact with a child’s early childhood program or school.”
To advance the “goal” of turning families into “equal partners,” the joint policy statement by the two federal bureaucracies provides “recommendations” to, and highlights resources for, state and local governments. The document argues that Big Brother needs to know about essentially everything, for the supposed benefit of the child it wants to “partner” in caring for. Citing “research,” the policy statement claims that “the institutions where children learn cannot ignore family wellness if they want to ... fulfill their mission to prepare children for school and academic success.” In other words, every aspect of family life is now fair game under the pretext of checking “family wellness.”    
While government usurpation of parental rights and responsibilities is hardly a new phenomenon, the Obama administration has pushed the agenda hard. Citing Obama's so-called “My Brother's Keeper” scheme, the document also touts ensuring that “children are learning across settings and that all adults who teach and care for them are strong partners with shared expectations and aligned strategies.” Thinking that Big Brother is going to align its “strategies” and “expectations” to those of parents — rather than the other way around — is na├»ve at best.
The “principles” underlying the agenda are spelled out explicitly, including “equal partnerships between families and professionals.” In fact, the paper calls for promoting “shared responsibility” between government “professionals” and families “for children's healthy development, learning and wellness.” The paper also calls for “jointly” developing and monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom, with government employees told to “engage parents as capable, competent partners.”  
Big Psychiatry will also play a major role. “Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health,” the document demands. “Ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.” In the policy statement's “recommendations” for states — much of which will be imposed through federal bribes — state governments are told to “expand early childhood mental health consultation efforts.”
There are lots of “recommendations” — nudge nudge, wink wink — for local governments, too. If parent “partners” are not partnering in a way approved of by Big Brother, for example, local officials should “identify supports that will be offered to parents such as evidence-based parenting interventions.” By interventions, they mean exactly what you think they mean. Local arms of Big Brother should also seek out “community partners” that can “provide comprehensive services, such as health, mental health, or housing assistance to meet families’ basic needs,” the document explains.
The Obama administration also wants to make sure that Big Brother's “partners” are being regularly checked up on — even at their homes. The document calls for various government programs to visit your house. Seriously. “To support ongoing relationship building with families, programs and schools should conduct periodic home visits so that teachers and families can get to know each other and communicate about children’s goals, strengths, challenges, and progress,” the policy statement says, adding that if home visits are not possible for “all families,” other requirements should be imposed.
The document also calls on schools to “assess families' needs and wants,” and even to provide training for parents on how to raise their children. Indeed, every aspect of parents' lives is in the cross hairs. “It is important that LEAs [local education agencies], schools and programs have a strategy for supporting family well being,” the Obama administration argues. “LEAs, schools and programs can support family well being through school social workers, by implementing community schools models or approaches, or using family support staff and mental health consultants.”
The Obama-backed community schools, dubbed parental-replacement centers by critics, are already in full swing, and set for a massive expansion, thanks to support by most Republicans in Congress. Indeed, as The New American reported recently, these “full-service community schools” are set to play a key role in the broader agenda, overseeing every aspect of children's lives ranging from dentistry and nutrition to “well being” and mental health. The recently passed “Every Student Succeeds Act” also contains provisions for deploying “mental health” programs against parents and even community members. Obama's recently retired Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who boasts of turning your children into “green” and “global” citizens with UNESCO using the “weapon” of education, even called for government to have “some kids” 24 hours a day, seven days per week.   
At first glance, the Obama administration policy document appears to be merely about “engaging families” in the raising of their own children. Indeed, there is much in the document that, if it were not coming from a federal government that is increasingly out of control and cannot even balance a budget, much less raise children, might sound innocent enough. For instance, the policy statement refers to parents as the children's “first and most important teachers, advocates, and nurturers.” What it implies, though, is that Big Brother is also going to play the role of “advocate” and “nurturer” to your children. Perhaps Big Brother can provide hugs and bed-time stories soon, too.
In fact, throughout the document, it becomes brazenly clear that federal bureaucrats are starting from the false assumption that Big Brother is in charge of raising children, and that parents may be called upon to help out as “partners.” It also purports to provide justification for governments to pry into every aspect of family life — an extraordinarily dangerous proposition that is a hallmark of totalitarian governments. The mindset evidenced throughout the document is beyond paternalistic and condescending to parents.   
So far, the joint policy statement by Obama's HHS and Education Department has flown largely under the radar. But as word spreads, critics are expressing outrage about Big Brother's accelerating intrusions into family life and child rearing. E-mails blasting the scheme have been spreading rapidly among education researchers. In a post about the policy headlined “Marxist Nanny State Coming for the Family,” education researcher Betsy Kraus noted that with “Early Childhood Education” now written into the recently approved Obama-GOP “education” bill known as the Every Student Succeeds Act, the American family is in the government's cross hairs. She also cited various extremist quotes by prominent psychiatrists illustrating just how dangerous the agenda truly is.
One furious mother, meanwhile, citing her Catholic faith and the U.S. Constitution's limits on federal power, compared the proposed governmental usurpation of parental authority in children's “development” to what occurs under communist dictatorships. “I am a Catholic and my rights and duties as a Catholic parent are to educate my children and that I am only a cooperator of that education with the love of God the Creator, NOT with the government, federal or state,” wrote the mother, Sara Wood, in a letter that has been widely circulated among education researchers and activists via the Internet.
Also blasting the joint policy statement was The People, LLC, a constitutionally focused activist and watchdog group that has dealt extensively with education and parental rights at the state and local level and has been successful in drafting laws recognizing and protecting parental rights in education. “Grants such as those related to this policy have been incentivizing states since the inception of the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant,” said co-founder Angela Alef. “Up to now, the effect of these grants has been realized within the population receiving childcare vouchers/assistance. With the continued expansion of the 'money-following-the-child' policies of Education Reform, such interference in parental authority will be realized across all populations unless a state-level fight is waged by citizens.”
In a statement provided to The New American, Alef cited a 2011 meeting of the Louisiana Department of Education's Early Education Supervisors to illustrate the point. She said that “concern was expressed there” that there would be “insufficient monitoring of children” whose parents decided against enrolling their pre-K-aged children in school. “The solution posed by the session leader was that, 'at some point, obviously, parents will have to be assessed,'” Alef recalled. The latest policy statement by the Department of Health and Human Services, she added, “can only be viewed as continuing the effort to standardize our families — one child at a time.”
It was not immediately clear when the policy draft was released, nor what the current status of it is. The document remains online at the federal government's website. It appears to have been put out during or after the fall of 2015. Nobody answered the phone at the agency when contacted by The New American on Wednesday to ask about the policy. In its press section, though, the department was boasting of federal agencies “joining forces” to create a new “center” that will “support the Obama administration’s goal of expanding access to high-quality early care, education, and home visiting for all young children.” (Emphasis added.) It said the goals would be accomplished through, among other means, providing “help” to states as well as “child care centers, preschools, and home visiting programs.”
Admittedly, a major part of the problem is that many parents have bought into the notion that they can, or even should, hand over their children to government “professionals” and “experts” to be raised, monitored, tracked, manipulated, and “developed.” But Big Brother has certainly played a giant role in encouraging that dangerous idea, most recently illustrated in the policy statement referring to families as “equal partners” in child rearing. Even setting aside the fact that the federal government has zero constitutional authority to meddle in child rearing or education, history suggests the results could be tragic. The American people must resist Big Brother's unwanted and unconstitutional advances at every level of government.
______________________________________________________
WHY WE ARE ALREADY SLAVES
BY GAVIN SEIM

CHILD SEX ABUSE: CATHOLIC CHURCH TELLS BISHOPS THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO REPORT OR DISCLOSE INCIDENTS

ITALY VATICAN POPE

Catholic Church tells bishops they are not obliged to disclose child sex abuse 

UPDATE: Church denies

BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/catholic-church-tells-bishops-they-are-not-obliged-to-disclose-child-sex-abuserepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

UPDATE: This report has a Vatican official claiming that Tony Anatrella didn’t mean what is being reported. That may be. But that he wrote it at all, after the Church has amassed such a terrible record regarding abuse cases, does not bode well.
This is not an off-topic post. We have seen the thorough corruption of the bishops before: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops received $79,590,512 in 2014 alone — that’s right, nearly 80 million dollars — from the federal government for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund. The bishops are actively encouraging the entry of Muslim migrants, among whom there will be an untold number of active jihad terrorists, into the U.S.
Catholic bishops in the U.S. and elsewhere are silent about Muslim persecution of Christians, and boycott and silence those who dare to tell the truth about that persecution.
And now these two news items below. The level of corruption and moral outrage is off the charts. These are men who claim to be moral arbiters but who have completely lost their moral compass.
“Catholic Church Tells Bishops They Are Not Obliged to Disclose Child Sex Abuse: Report,” by Rishi Iyengar, Time, February 11, 2016:
Report says the church has told prelates that decision should be made by the victims and their families
The Catholic Church is allegedly telling newly ordained bishops that they have no obligation to report child-sexual-abuse allegations to law-enforcement officials, saying instead that the decision to take such claims to the authorities should be left to victims and their families.
The policy was first reported by a veteran Vatican journalist at Catholic news website Crux, who cited a presentation given by French Monsignor Tony Anatrella.
Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, also authored a training document for new bishops released by Church authorities last week, in which similar guidelines are laid out.
According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,” his document states, according to a citation in the Guardian….
And then there’s John Feit, a priest who murdered a woman. His superiors knew about it, and instead of reporting him to police, moved him around and covered up the crime: “Ex-Priest Is Arrested in 1960 Killing of Texas Beauty Queen,” by Fernanda Santos, New York Times, February 11, 2016:
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — She had a disarming combination of beauty and intelligence and, in her short life, amassed a collection of accomplishments and firsts: first Hispanic twirler at a majority-Anglo high school on the Texas-Mexico border, first in her family to go to college, homecoming queen and, in 1958, Miss All South Texas Sweetheart.
Irene Garza, 25, was working as a grade-school teacher when she was killed 56 years ago, asphyxiated, an autopsy revealed, and then dumped in an irrigation canal. She was last seen at Sacred Heart Church in McAllen, Tex., her hometown parish, where she had planned to go to confession ahead of Easter Sunday.
On Tuesday, Texas Rangers and McAllen police officers arrested the parish’s visiting priest at the time — now an octogenarian — who had been living quietly in a condominium complex here. His name is John Feit, and through the years, he has remained the sole suspect in Ms. Garza’s killing.
Mr. Feit, 83, shuffled with his walker along the linoleum floor at the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix on Wednesday, anchored his stooped body behind a desk and addressed Commissioner Paula Williams of Maricopa County Superior Court, who was presiding over his initial court appearance on closed-circuit television.
“This whole thing makes no sense, because the crime in question took place in 1960,” Mr. Feit said, sounding hoarse and tired.
“There’s no statute of limitations on that sort of crime,” the commissioner replied.
Mr. Feit’s arrest in what is perhaps the most memorable cold case in recent history in Hidalgo County came about through a mix of patience, persistence and political ambition. As suspicions against Mr. Feit mounted, the Roman Catholic Church moved him to a monastery in the tiny Missouri town of Ava, and from there to a home for troubled priests in tinier Jemez Springs, N.M.
When Ms. Garza disappeared, the police chalked it up to a case of a pretty young woman who had run off with a lover and fled the confining rules of her fervently Catholic family. Two days later, a passer-by found one of her high-heeled shoes on a road on the edge of McAllen, which sits across from Reynosa, Mexico. The next morning, someone found her purse.
By midweek, her body surfaced in the canal. Divers drained its waters, recovering a clunky slide viewer with a long black cord that the police presumed had been tied to Ms. Garza’s corpse so it would sink to the canal’s muddy bottom.
The slide viewer belonged to Mr. Feit.
Already, the young priest had admitted to hearing Ms. Garza’s confession, saying he had done so in the privacy of the rectory. And the parish’s priest, the Rev. Joseph O’Brien, told investigators that he noticed fresh scratches on Mr. Feit’s hands when they had coffee late that night….
But at Assumption Abbey in Ava, a Trappist monk named Dale Tacheny — who, as a novice master, served as coach and spiritual counselor to new arrivals — heard a different story.
In an interview, Mr. Tacheny, who is no longer a monk, recalled that the abbot had told him that Mr. Feit “had killed someone” and asked him to see if Mr. Feit “had the vocation to become a monk.” It soon became clear he did not.
“He told me he didn’t feel comfortable there — he didn’t want to spend the rest of his life in that environment,” Mr. Tacheny said.
According to Mr. Tacheny, Mr. Feit confided in him that he had killed a young woman in Texas; Mr. Tacheny never asked her name or pressed him for any details. His role, he said, was to prepare Mr. Feit for life outside the monastery, to “help him to be in control of himself.”
Mr. Feit had also spoken about hurting another woman in Hidalgo County, Mr. Tacheny recalled. Detectives had already matched his description to that given by a woman who had been attacked inside a Catholic church on the outskirts of McAllen weeks before Ms. Garza’s killing — a white man with horn-rimmed glasses just like those Mr. Feit wore. Eventually, Mr. Feit pleaded no contest to charges of aggravated assault and paid a $500 fine, but he served no jail time.

LIBERTY ACTIVISTS & ISIS WILL SOON BE TREATED AS IDENTICAL THREATS

LIBERTY ACTIVISTS & ISIS WILL SOON BE TREATED AS IDENTICAL THREATS 
BY BRANDON SMITH
SEE: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/liberty-activists-and-isis-will-soon-be-treated-as-identical-threats.htmlrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Many of us saw it coming a long time ago — increasing confrontation between liberty proponents and the corrupt federal establishment leading to increasing calls by political elites and bureaucrats to apply to American citizens the terrorism countermeasures designed for foreign combatants. It was only a matter of time and timing.
My stance has always been that the elites would wait until there was ample social and political distraction; a fog of fear allowing them to move more aggressively against anti-globalists. We are not quite there yet, but the ground is clearly being prepared.
Economic uncertainty looms large over our fiscal structure today, more so even than in 2008. Global instability is rampant, with Europe at the forefront as mass migrations of “refugees” invade wholesale. At best, most of them intend to leach off of the EU’s already failing socialist welfare structure while refusing to integrate or respect Western social principles. At worst, a percentage of these migrants are members of ISIS with the goals of infiltration, disruption and coordinated destruction.
With similar immigration and transplantation measures being applied to the U.S. on a smaller scale (for now) the ISIS plague will inevitably hit our shores in a manner that will undoubtedly strike panic in the masses. I believe 2016 will be dubbed the “year of the terrorist,” and ISIS will not be the only “terrorists” in the spotlight.
While scanning the pages of mainstream propaganda machines like Reuters, I came across this little gem of an article, which outlines plans by the U.S. Justice Department to apply existing enemy combatant laws used against ISIS terrorists and their supporters to “domestic extremists,” specifically mentioning the Bundy takeover of the federal refuge in Burns, Oregon as an example.
“Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a “clear and present danger,” John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, told Reuters in an interview. “Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment.”
 “Clear and present danger” is a vital phrase implemented in this statement from Carlin and he used it quite deliberately. It refers to something called the “clear and present danger doctrine or test,” a doctrine rarely used except during times of mass panic, such as during WWI and WWII. The doctrine applies specifically to the removal of 1st Amendment rights of free speech during moments of “distress.”
What does this mean, exactly? “Clear and present danger” is a legal mechanism by which the government claims the right not only to prosecute or destroy enemies of the state, but also anyone who publicly supports those same enemies through speech or writing.
Recently, the prospect of allowing the Federal Communications Commission to target and shut down websites related to ISIS has been fielded by congressional representatives. Many people have warned against this as setting a dangerous precedent by which the government could be given free license to censor and silence ANY websites they deem “harmful” to the public good, even those not tied to ISIS in any way.
Of course, overt hatred of Islamic extremism among conservatives is at Defcon 1 right now, and with good reason. Unfortunately, this may lead constitutional conservatives, the most stalwart proponents of free speech, to mistakenly set the stage for the erasure of free speech rights all in the name of stopping ISIS activity. The greatest proponents of constitutional liberties could very well become the greatest enemies of constitutional liberties if they fall for the ploy set up by the establishment.
The Reuters article outlines the future implications quite plainly:
The U.S. State Department designates international terrorist organizations to which it is illegal to provide “material support.” No domestic groups have that designation, helping to create a disparity in charges faced by international extremist suspects compared to domestic ones.
It has been applied in 58 of the government’s 79 Islamic State cases since 2014 against defendants who engaged in a wide range of activity, from traveling to Syria to fight alongside Islamic State to raising money for a friend who wished to do so.
Prosecutors can bring “material support” terrorism charges against defendants who aren’t linked to groups on the State Department’s list, but they have only done so twice against non-jihadist suspects since the law was enacted in 1994. The law, which prohibits supporting people who have been deemed to be terrorists by their actions, carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.”
The Justice Department goes on to explain that they are “exploring” options to make “material support” charges more applicable to “domestic extremists.”
So what constitutes “material support?” Well, as mentioned earlier, John Carlin just told us. His use of the phrase “clear and present danger” denotes that 1st Amendment speech will be restricted, ostensibly because some speech will be labeled “material support” of terrorist organizations. The liberty movement, likely in the near future, is about to be outwardly defined by the establishment as a terrorist movement, and those who support it through speech will be designated as material supporters of said terrorism.
To be utterly clear, this could apply to any and everyone who promotes anti-government sentiments online, and will likely be aimed more prominently at liberty analysts and journalists. The argument for this move is rather humorous in my view — bureaucrats and others complain that it is “not fair” that Islamic terrorists are being treated more harshly than “white rural domestic extremists” and that material support laws should be enforced against everyone equally.
Yes, that’s right, the 1st Amendment is under threat because the Justice Department does not want to appear “racist.” At least, that is their public excuse…
I’m not sure whether it is depressing or hilariously ironic that the U.S. government (along with many other governments) is preparing the groundwork for prosecution of liberty activists for material support of terrorism when it is the government that has been proven time and again to be by far the most generous material supporter of terrorist organizations.
Will this all take place in a vacuum? Of course not. Something terrible is brewing. Another Oklahoma City-style bombing, perhaps. Or a standoff gone horribly awry. The standoff in Oregon continues without Ammon Bundy and is about to get worse in the next week according to my information (you will see what I mean). The point is, the narrative is being finalized in preparation for whatever trigger events may be in store, and that narrative closely associates ISIS with liberty activists as being in the same category.
As law enforcement experts confront domestic militia groups, “sovereign citizens” who do not recognize government authority, and other anti-government extremists, they also face a heightened threat from Islamic extremists like the couple who carried out the Dec. 2 shootings in San Bernardino, California.
This is why I have consistently argued against giving any extra-judicial powers to our already bloated federal system. I am a staunch opponent of Islamic immigration and terrorism, but some people are so desperate to fight one monster that they are willing to give unlimited powers to another monster thinking it will give their minds ease. These people are fools, and they are putting the rest of us at risk.
If you want to fight ISIS, then fight them yourself. Do not give the same government that helped create ISIS and then deliberately transplanted them to Europe and the U.S. even more legal authority over our lives to supposedly “stop” ISIS. This would be absurd.
In the meantime, I would point out that regardless of how the federal government wishes to label us, the liberty movement could not be more different from the Islamic State:
1) We don’t enjoy covert funding and training from the government at large as ISIS does. (Though according to leftists, we all take our marching orders from the Koch Brothers).
2) Most of us were born in this country and are rather attached to it.
3) ISIS fights to dismantle traditional Western values. We fight to restore traditional Western values, and we will not only fight ISIS but also cultural Marxists and collectivists who share the same disdain for liberty.
4) Many of us are far better trained than ISIS goons so, if anything, we are a more severe threat to the enemies of free society. (We actually look down our sights when we shoot rather than hiding behind cars with the rifle over our head and squatting like a constipated dog. We can also operate their AK-47s better than they can).
5) We are as opposed to Sharia Law as we are to martial law. In fact, we see them as essentially the same unacceptable circumstance.
6) We don’t cannibalize our enemies. (Who would want to take a bite out of Henry Kissinger’s spleen?)
7) We might look down on the insane ramblings of today’s feminists, but at least we would not stone them, enforce female circumcision, then rape them, then throw acid in their faces, then slap a hijab on them and take away their driver’s licenses. So maybe, just maybe, we toxic masculine conservative barbarians aren’t as bad as they seem to think we are.
8) We understand that black pajamas are not the best camouflage, but ISIS may have better fashion sense than we do.
9) Our beards are all-American. Their beards are just plain creepy.
10) They fight to be martyred. We fight to win.
When all is said and done, who is the greater threat to you and your freedoms? A psychotic theocrat that has taken his religion so far into the forbidden zone that any evil, no matter how heinous, is justified through the circular logic of zealotry? The criminal government that funded that psycho, trained him, slapped a rocket launcher in his hands and then gave him a free plane ride to your favorite shopping mall? Or, some weirdo that stores lots of food and gas masks in his basement and every once in a while talks to you about 9/11? Come on, think about it…

CDC, VACCINES & AUTISM: MASSIVE CORRUPTION EXPOSED

CDC, VACCINES & AUTISM: 
MASSIVE CORRUPTION EXPOSED
Published on Feb 12, 2016
Writer and reporter, Joshua Cook, details the findings explored in the latest mini-documentary from Truth In Media; CDC, VACCINES and AUTISM. This report details a documented case of massive corruption within the CDC and an attempt to change research, protocols and ultimately hide their own findings.