Arabs Living in Israel are Subject to Military Rule and Laws

Israel takes one more step in Hitler's footsteps — coming to America soon since the Khazars look at American non-Jews as cattle (Goy).

Israeli Lawmakers Approve New Stop and Frisk Laws

February 2, 2016

The Associated Press - Israel's parliament passed a law on Tuesday expanding police powers, allowing them to stop and frisk suspects without probable cause, the latest attempt to crack down on near-daily Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Critics say the law will allow police to racially profile minorities and Arabs.

While previously police could only search people suspected of carrying a weapon, under the new measures officers can search anyone in areas declared by district police commanders to be possible settings for "hostile sabotage activity." They can also search people they suspect might commit violent crime.

Israel's internal security minister Gilad Erdan of the Likud party said the law is "an important enhancement of the police's ability to more effectively battle terrorism and violence."

Arab lawmaker Jamal Zahalka said that it was "clear the main people affected will be Arabs and people who look like Arabs."

Since September, 26 Israelis have been killed in Palestinian attacks. At least 151 Palestinians have died from Israeli fire, including 106 Israel said were attackers.

In October, Israel approved new measures to crack down on violence. Steps approved included allowing police to impose a closure on points of friction or incitement according to security assessments.

Israel also resumed the demolition of homes belonging to Palestinian assailants. On Tuesday, the military said security forces measured the home of Amjad Sukkari, 34, a Palestinian police officer who shot at Israeli soldiers at a West Bank checkpoint Sunday, wounding three before troops shot him dead.

Israel says home demolition deters attacks, but critics say the tactic amounts to collective punishment.

The Feds and State Troopers Shot Oregon Protestor LaVoy Finicum While His Hands Were in the Air, and They Shot Him Some More After He Was Down on the Ground (the Feds and State Troopers Setup a Roadblock, with Snipers in the Trees, and Ambushed Their Vehicle, Shooting at Least 120 Times, But None of the Protestors Touched Their Guns)

Below is the complete video footage of a joint FBI and Oregon State Police traffic stop and OSP officer-involved shooting of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This footage, which has only been edited to blur out aircraft information, was taken by the FBI on 01/26/2016 and released by the FBI on 01/28/2016.



From the female witness that was in the truck with him, the cops shot at them at the first stop while they had their hands out the window but missed, so they took off. That stupid cop walked into the line of the oncoming truck, probably so he could take a shot at the driver. You can clearly see the state cop run in front of the vehicle. LaVoy's vehicle went to go around and then you see the cop JUMP IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK. Not the opposite way around. There was not a shoot out period. Instead, a murder takes place. It was a set up and no traffic violation ever took place. The FEDS are in complete control of any and all information getting out to the public. No one in the group wanted any violence to take place except for the FEDS. REMEMBER THE MOVIE FIRST BLOOD? WE NOW KNOW NOTHING THE FEDS SAY CAN BE TRUSTED. Looks like they shot LaVoy with his hands in the air and then he dropped his hands and turned when he got shot again, grabbing at where he was shot. Where's the dash cam videos or the on ground videos? If he was going to shoot, why didn't he come out shooting? Why did he raise his hands then?

Testimony from Victoria Sharp, who was in the car when LaVoy Finicum was ‪EXECUTED by the Feds:



On YouTube, search "LaVoy Finicum executed."

Eleven people face federal felony charges in Oregon of conspiracy to impede federal officials in their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats in connection with the standoff that began Jan. 2 when a group opposed to federal land policy took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Some holdouts remain at the refuge near Burns, Oregon.

Feds' Plan to Violate the Posse Comitatus Act Dates Back to 2000 or Earlier; Taxpayers are Funding Their Future Enslavement Under Martial Law

The National Interagency Civil-Military Institute (NICI) is an educational institute—funded by the Department of Defense (DOD) through the National Guard Bureau—with the mission of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of joint civilian and military initiatives. To this end, it provides education to middle- and upper-level managers from the military, law enforcement agencies, emergency management and public safety organizations, and community groups. Founded in 1989 as the National Interagency Counterdrug Institute, its initial areas of focus involved border security and drug interdiction efforts, but it has expanded its course offerings since that time. In 1989, Dr. William Jefferds, former deputy adjutant general of the California National Guard, submitted a proposal to the National Guard Bureau for an institute to train individuals and agencies in joint operations. Congress approved the plan for NICI, established at Camp San Luis Obispo in California. In 1994, NICI added a course in military support to civil authorities (MSCA), and in the following year held its first international MSCA course, attended by participants from several former Soviet republics. Following several terrorist attacks during the mid-1990s, NICI in 1997 developed antiterrorism courses, as well as blocks of instruction in community response to emergencies. It also conducts force protection level II training under the guidance of the U.S. Military Police School. [Source]

'Gunslinger 2000' military exercises begin

Marines hit classroom, not streets, in terror simulation  

By David M. Bresnahan, WND
Published: 06/14/2000 

There is no visible sign of Marines on the streets of Kentucky, but inside the Boone National Guard Center in Frankfort the 4th Marine Division and civil agencies will be dealing with devastation after a terrorist attack — simulated by a computer program.

“Gunslinger 2000” is an experimental program involving the 4th Marine Division in a joint exercise with civil agencies preparing for a possible terrorist attack within the continental United States, as previously reported by WorldNetDaily.
 
A Marine spokeswoman identified as Maj. Buckley told WorldNetDaily that Marines in uniform would not be visible on the streets during the exercise. She said “Gunslinger 2000” is a classroom event that will take place at the Boone National Guard Center in Frankfort, and inside Fort Knox.

“They’re going to have different events which test their abilities to develop policy procedures and working relationships in a controlled environment,” explained Buckley. “The locations I have are Frankfort from 17 to 24 June, and then the following week it’s in Fort Knox.”

The mock scenario has already begun, according to plans provided by Marine public affairs. A massive mock-earthquake took place yesterday along the “New Madrid” fault, causing major destruction and forcing large populations to be moved to shelters in camps set up by the Red Cross.

Plans call for each of the many camps of survivors to be attacked by terrorists using undisclosed weapons of mass destruction. The specifics of the attacks will be made known to the participants in the exercise when each happens.

The training is made possible through a computer simulation developed by Cubic Applications, Inc. (CAI) working under contract with the National Simulation Center (NSC).

The training will be part of a training exercise run by a military organization known as the National Interagency Civil-Military Institute (NICI) from San Luis Obispo, Calif.

NICI began in 1989 and provides training for military and civil agencies that need to work together for various reasons. The Community Response Emergency Simulation Training (CREST) exercise will involve federal agencies, Marines, National Guard, state and local elected leaders, emergency management leaders, local law enforcement and other civil agencies. The participants will develop a strategic and tactical plan to manage a terrorist attack of such a large magnitude that it totally immobilizes a large population.

“The participants will be confronted with over 100 scripted events which tests their ability to develop policy, procedures, and working relationships in a controlled environment,” according to Sgt. Maj. Loretta Averna, NICI public affairs in a written statement.

The computer simulation is called “Spectrum,” designed by CAI under the direction of John A. Harris, a former Army Lt. Col. with terrorism and special operations experience.

The program was developed under federal contract as a way to simulate military operations “other than war,” Harris told WorldNetDaily. Spectrum was used to train the Army for missions in Bosnia and Kosovo because it “has the capability to simulate the peacekeeping environment,” explained Harris.

CAI provided the personnel to develop, test, document, train and field the simulation under contract with NSC at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. A newer version of Spectrum is currently under development with help from Texas A&M, according to Harris.

“We have taken the table-top methodology and made it partially electronic by using the simulation. Basically, all the simulation does is to allow graphics on a map in the form of overlays we have to create, and real-time movement over roads, obstacles and so on for vehicles. The simulation produces casualties, consumes fuel and rations, and any type of organization can be created from refugees to hospitals to contaminated patients,” explained Harris.

“The key point is the taxpayers are winning on this one as we are adapting a military simulation to apply to a civilian and DOD response to a terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction) event for the purpose of training at the interagency level for local, state and federal responses,” he added.

Retired Army Officer Warns That Homeland Security is Preparing for War Against U.S. Citizens

The government is spending real money to build a massive army against U.S. citizens. Local, county and state police forces are being armed by the feds with military weapons and equipment. In addition, government employees are also being armed to fight a war on U.S. soil, including employees of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commerce Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense. Law enforcement agencies, federal agencies, the National Guard, the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines are preparing for Martial Law.

For a possible explanation to why federal agencies are purchasing millions of rounds of ammo, see Hunger Games and Executive Order 13603: National Defense Resources Preparedness — the agencies purchasing ammo are also members of the Defense Production Act Committee, which was formed as a result of executive order 13603. EO 13603 gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy — in the name of national security — in times of national emergency. This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas — even farm equipment — can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.

"The second I knew about the movie The Hunger Games I knew I had to see it; and when I saw it, it was extremely easy for me to pick out all the obvious things that are being sold to us (particularly our youth) in the form of predictive programming. I sure hope I'm not around when times similar to those come into existence. What's going on now is MORE than sufficient. By the way, I also noticed that all of the valuable resources are controlled by the elite. Reminds me of a little something recently signed off by Obama, where it gives the government full control of our resources in the event of a national crisis. Slowly and surely, they are setting the stage for a world damn near identical to the one depicted in this film." - Andy, April 2012, “The Hunger Games”: A Glimpse at the Future?

Retired Army officer warns: DHS preparing for war against American citizens

March 23, 2013

Examiner.com - On Saturday, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired United States Army Captain from Fort Worth, Texas, posted a letter on Facebook that he wrote to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, warning that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.

"It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America," his letter began.

The retired officer expressed deep concerns over "recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems."

Capt. Hestilow added a statement that Barack Obama made during his 2008 campaign.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta (sic) have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the United States military],” he said.

He also accused the administration of "deliberately defunding, overextending, and hollowing the Department of Defense," which he said is the "only legitimate agency" with the mission of conducting combat operations.

In his letter, Capt. Hestilow called on Congress to demand that the DHS surrender their weapons systems to the Defense Department. He also accused the DHS of enforcing the "tyrannical acts of this president" and said lawmakers should dissolve the agency "as soon as possible."

"One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation," he added.

Capt. Hestilow said that Americans cannot "be so naïve" as to think that what happened in Germany cannot happen here.

Earlier in the week, Capt. Hestilow asked his Facebook followers who the DHS intends to kill with the weapons and ammunition that it has recently purchased.

The Militarization of America's Police

The federal government is arming local law enforcement with tanks and assault weapons. It is essentially a way for the government to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by simply militarizing the police to the point where they are indistinguishable from the actual armed forces, effectively eliminating the need to even declare martial law.

A glaring example of the steady march toward de facto martial law in which police are so militarized there is little to no difference between them and the military itself occurred again in San Bernardino, California. 

On the morning of December 2nd, 2015, a heavily armed man and woman dressed for battle opened fire on a holiday banquet for the man's co-workers with the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, killing 14 people and wounding 17 (10 were hospitalized in critical condition, and three were in serious condition). Survivors of the shootings at the banquet, which began at 11 a.m., identified the man as their co-worker Syed Rizwan Farook and his new wife Tashfeen Malik. Farook, 28, was a restaurant inspector for the health department and had been a county employee for five years. According to reports, there was some type of dispute at the banquet before Farook, who was born in Chicago, left the event. He later returned with Malik, 27, who he met on a trip to Saudi Arabia, and four firearms; they opened fire on colleagues who earlier this year had thrown a shower for their new baby. The couple left their 6-month-old daughter with relatives before heading to the center for the holiday party.

The banquet was held in rented space at the Inland Regional Center, at a privately run, nonprofit center for people with developmental disabilities, which employs 670 people. FBI agents and other law enforcement authorities converged on the center and searched room to room for the attackers. Triage units were set up outside. People were marched from the building, hands raised so police could search them, even though co-workers had identified the shooter(s), who already had escaped from the center. As the manhunt dragged on, stores, office buildings, and schools were locked down and roads were blocked off in the Southern California city of 214,000 people.

About four hours after the shootings, the suspects died in a shootout with police. Police, hunting for the killers, riddled a black SUV with gunfire in a shootout two miles from the center. The SUV was spotted by officers staking out the couples' home in the nearby city of Redlands. Two dozen law enforcement pursued the SUV, and a gun battle erupted around 3 p.m. A fake bomb — a metal pipe stuffed with cloth — was thrown from the SUV during the chase, according to police. Jesus Gonzales, 36, said his house was hit during the gun battle while his wife was inside. His wife “called me frantically saying she’s hearing gunshots going off. Everywhere. And that she’s scared. And that she heard noises in the house, like it’s hitting the house,” he told the San Bernardino Sun. “She ducked down and said she heard more than 100 rounds.”

Brian Ross of NBC News reported that all employees at the center where the shooting occurred were told not to speak to reporters until they were debriefed by law enforcement (at the 2:30 mark in this video).  

Cops are Trained to Shoot "Center Mass" to "Stop the Threat," Which Means to Shoot to Kill

We need to acknowledge and address the problems of LEOs whose use of deadly force is not justified by the urgency of a situation. It is time for the police community to admit that they have some problem officers in their midst and help find a way to deal with them too. A civilized society does need some sort of law enforcement but it must be part of the society and not apart from it (or from significant parts of it.)

A 12-month study by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 1.4% of people who had contact with the police had force used or threatened to be used against them.  

Police officers are trained to quickly assess possible threats. Force, particularly deadly force, may be used if officers can explain their perception of the physical threats that put them and/or others at substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. Departmental policies and police training in the United States reflect the "objective reasonableness" principle put forth in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 Graham v. Connor decision, which applies a three-part test to assess the seriousness of the offense, the suspect threat, and the suspect's resistance or evasiveness. 

"Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is no longer presenting a threat," says David Klinger, a former police officer who shot and killed a man while a police officer in Los Angeles in 1981 (he fired one fatal shot that killed a man who had stabbed a fellow officer with a butcher knife). "It's not unusual for police officers to find themselves in a circumstance where they have to shoot multiple rounds because the suspect simply isn't stopping," Klinger says. Klinger, now an associate professor in criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, says it also is important that officers have non-lethal means available to quell a violent suspect, including a Taser. Officers are trained to gauge the threat and use reasonable force, all in a time frame of a few seconds or less. Klinger says cultural differences can dictate how people react to police trying to stop them — from walking in the middle of the street, for example — especially if they have long felt persecuted by law enforcement. Police should be trained in these realities, especially if the lens through which (some people) see the world is one where police are constantly doing this because of the color of my skin or because of the economic status of my life. This training can help police tailor their actions in less confrontational ways, perhaps preventing events from spinning out of control, says Jim Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization that conducts research and training to improve policing. "Under this idea, you allow people to interact before you use the authority that the law has invested in you," he says. "Training in these kinds of issues is, I think, lacking in the United States." [Source]

As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized: Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated. Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process." This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do two things at once - shoot and assess - a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances. A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension. While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended. Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It's an involuntary factor of human dynamics. [Source]

Police officers are NOT trained, under no circumstances, to shoot and wound. They're trained to shoot and neutralize the threat. That doesn't mean shoot to kill but it does mean making sure the other person is no longer a threat. An officer can't shoot a knee or a leg because the targets are too small. Officers are all trained to shoot for center mass, the chest. And they're trained to fire more than once if necessary. Nine times out of 10, an individual who is shot and is shot center mass, they're not going down, they're still going to be active; they're still going to potentially be aggressive. [Source]

"I served 11 1/2 years with the VIPD and never shot anyone. I am only 5'6" and disarmed many a foe without firing a shot. In my day, if you killed anyone you were charged just like any other criminal, so you had that on your mind every time you responded to a call. You were taught self defense, including karate and boxing. I trained privately and earned a first degree black belt. I believe the proliferation in killings has to do with the training and the emphasis on the use of the weapon. We were given a baton, a black jack and handcuffs, which you could use before using deadly force. I don't think that the average officer understands what it is to be criminally charged and that is why they are so eager to use deadly force. The stress that you face when you are charged is worse than having a tooth ache. Also, the culture of the higher-up to condone and cover-up for the rank and file does the profession a disservice and puts the officers at more risk. The culture and training must change as we are living in an audio-video world. Big Brother is everywhere. - Augustin, Yahoo!, June 12, 2015

Comments from Shooter's Forum on the thread "Are police trained to shoot to kill?":

French President to Extend 'State of Emergency' for Three Months: 1,500 Heavily-armed Soldiers in Body Armour Descend on Paris

France Considers Extending State of Emergency Laws, Which Historically Suppress Muslims

November 15, 2015

Mic - Following the gruesome terrorist attacks in Paris, President François Hollande immediately declared a state of emergency, tightened France's borders and ordered 1,500 French troops to descend on Paris — temporary measures for extreme times.

But foreign correspondents and the French press report that Hollande will ask for his country's state of emergency, which he declared on Friday, to be extended for three months. The bill will be presented by the cabinet on Wednesday, Le Figaro reports, and Parliament will have to decide whether to extend the state of emergency — as it does with any state of emergency lasting over 12 days, under French law.

President Hollande will also ask for the law to be amended or altered, likely because the law as it stands gives the state incredibly broad powers to suppress the public.

The state of emergency also allows the government to set up curfews, and in the past it has been used to curfew just certain kinds of people. Notably, those people have been Muslims.

Sudden and extreme power: In many countries, laws governing a state of emergency are used in cases of natural disasters, declarations of war or civil unrest — in that regard, France's state of emergency seems appropriate. But France's laws about what the government can do in that state are specific and severe.

A state of emergency allows police to make home searches without warrants and set up blockades. The government can set up "protection areas" in one space and drive people out of public in another. They can close public events, prevent theaters from opening and exercise control over the press off "all kinds," whether that's print, radio or otherwise.

The only thing more drastic would be to declare a state of "siege," which would hand over power to the military.

The state of emergency also allows the government to set up curfews, and in the past it has been used to curfew only certain kinds of people. Notably, those people have been Muslims.

A history of tension with Muslims: The law was drafted in 1955 to deal with Algerian separatists and has only been used on two notable occasions — both of which had some element of policing Muslims.

Former U.S. Soldiers and Increasingly Militarized Police Forces

The military defends the nation from abroad; cops defend it from within. Ninety-nine percent of the work a cop will do is traffic stops, investigations, and show of force. They do train to use their weapon if needed, but firefights are not the bread and butter of their job. Infantry in the military, on the other hand, trains for combat, mainly large scale combat. The military doesn't teach you how to restrain people or prevent injuries to your combatants. A board established by Gov. John Kasich is considering ways to make needless use of violence by law enforcement officers less common. Suggestions, some already adopted by the General Assembly, have included better education requirements and improved training. Another idea, one the board is studying, is standards for when police officers and sheriffs' deputies can use force. All of this will help. But the bottom line - individual officers' psychological traits - has not received adequate attention. Is a certain officer easily rattled in stressful situations? Does another enjoy harassing people? Is yet another given to using his weapons even if they are not necessary? And how can law enforcement officials tell these things about their officers and deputies? There is a difference between the military and police, of course, and it is an excellent reason for Kasich's panel to talk to the Pentagon: On the streets, deadly force should always be a last resort. In fact, one prized character trait in the military - aggressiveness - is a drawback in law enforcement. You may not want a soldier who is courteous, patient and understanding, but those aren't bad things to have in a cop. [Source]

Cops or soldiers? [Excerpt]

March 22, 2014

The Economist - Civil libertarians such as Radley Balko, the author of “Rise of the Warrior Cop”, fret that the American police are becoming too much like soldiers. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams (ie, paramilitary police units) were first formed to deal with violent civil unrest and life-threatening situations: shoot-outs, rescuing hostages, serving high-risk warrants and entering barricaded buildings, for instance. Their mission has crept.

Peter Kraska, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University’s School of Justice Studies, estimates that SWAT teams were deployed about 3,000 times in 1980 but are now used around 50,000 times a year. Some cities use them for routine patrols in high-crime areas. Baltimore and Dallas have used them to break up poker games. In 2010 New Haven, Connecticut sent a SWAT team to a bar suspected of serving under-age drinkers. That same year heavily-armed police raided barber shops around Orlando, Florida; they said they were hunting for guns and drugs but ended up arresting 34 people for “barbering without a license”. Maricopa County, Arizona sent a SWAT team into the living room of Jesus Llovera, who was suspected of organizing cockfights. Police rolled a tank into Mr Llovera’s yard and killed more than 100 of his birds, as well as his dog. According to Mr Kraska, most SWAT deployments are not in response to violent, life-threatening crimes, but to serve drug-related warrants in private homes.

He estimates that 89% of police departments serving American cities with more than 50,000 people had SWAT teams in the late 1990s—almost double the level in the mid-1980s. By 2007 more than 80% of police departments in cities with between 25,000 and 50,000 people had them, up from 20% in the mid-1980s (there are around 18,000 state and local police agencies in America, compared with fewer than 100 in Britain).

The number of SWAT deployments soared even as violent crime fell. And although in recent years crime rates have risen in smaller American cities, Mr Kraska writes that the rise in small-town SWAT teams was driven not by need, but by fear of being left behind. Fred Leland, a police lieutenant in the small town of Walpole, Massachusetts, says that police departments in towns like his often invest in military-style kit because they “want to keep up” with larger forces.

The courts have smiled on SWAT raids. They often rely on “no-knock” warrants, which authorize police to force their way into a home without announcing themselves. This was once considered constitutionally dubious. But the Supreme Court has ruled that police may enter a house without knocking if they have “a reasonable suspicion” that announcing their presence would be dangerous or allow the suspect to destroy evidence (for example, by flushing drugs down the toilet).

Read the whole thing

Watch the video:

With Aid of the Pentagon, Police Develop Military Mind Set [Excerpt]

September 12, 1999

Diane Cecilia Weber - Since 1981, when Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Official Act, the military has become increasingly involved in civilian law enforcement, and has been encouraged to share equipment, training, facilities and technology with civilian enforcement agencies.

The Federal Government's Crimes Against the People

10 Indications That the United States is a Dictatorship

America can no longer be called a Land of the Free ruled by We the People.

May 16, 2011

Activist Post - For a people to be free, they must first be honest with themselves, their government, and the world at large. History is filled with stories of free nations that fell under the spell cast by their governments who exploited the threat of terror. In fact, numerous presidents in American history already have used various specific threats to sidestep their Constitutional restraints.

Today we are entering a nebulous world where our “enemy” cannot be defined, has no particular allegiance to one country, and is able to adopt new leaders at will.

Rather than encourage a sense of resilience and independence in its citizens, America has chosen to amplify the terror threat in order to concentrate power in the hands of the State. The very first signpost on this historically familiar road to tyranny is an atmosphere of hate, suspicion, and vindictiveness. It first begins as an outwardly directed aggression and then rather abruptly turns inward upon itself.

The good news is that freedom is won and lost in the hearts and minds of men. It is for this reason that we must state the obvious: we have clearly passed through the first “atmospheric” stage of approaching dictatorship, and have now entered the second — the open behavior of a dictatorship in the United States.

It will never be announced on the evening news, and it is not likely to continue under an authoritarian leader in the mold of a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Likewise, it is not to say that Barack Obama is the first dictator of The United States, but rather is part of a continued expansion of executive power that is now so great that by all measures America can no longer be called a Land of the Free ruled by We the People. We stand no chance of reversing this forced march by false democracy until we understand where we are headed, who is leading us there, and for what purpose.

1. Rule by force, not by law
   
   This is where it all begins; when the legal framework that serves to define a country and its behavior is dismantled and intimidation tactics take over. In the most extreme case, drone bombings and assassinations have begun of non-citizens, as well as U.S. citizens, leading only to a debate over whether U.S. citizens should be stripped of citizenship before assassination.
   
   Governmental assassinations are in complete opposition to the laws of America and all international laws and agreements. In the last week we have also seen the official elimination of the 4th Amendment in Indiana, which is a clear precedent-setting ruling to say that the State now believes that it owns the property and person of its citizens. As a result, the militarized police have been granted unlimited access, which will only cause an escalation in cases of police brutality and misconduct.
   
   This is yet another addition to the precedent set by TSA groping and sexual harassment in airports, Child Protective Services kidnapping children of activists in pro-liberty causes, public school surveillance, and the lawless detention of activists who videotape the police.
   
   All areas of society are now ruled top-down through state legislation adopted to justify federal grants that have installed a police state apparatus in America. And these federal agencies such as the TSA actually believe they rule supreme over the states.
   
   We now live in a country where CIA abductions, overseas detention, torture and assassinations can be carried out against Americans without due process and without recourse if later cleared. Consequently, an atmosphere has been created where the government is permitted to break countless laws, like warrantless GPS tracking of activists by the FBI, while average citizens are guilty of pre-crimes.
   
   
   
   The increase in executive power under the aegis of National Security is our greatest threat and has led to all that follows.
   
   
2. Crushing peaceful protest

Read More...

This is What a Police State Looks Like in America

Published on April 20, 2013

http://www.policestateusa.com

WATERTOWN, MA - On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.

This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.



After Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed on April 19, 2013, "authorities" in Boston suspended all mass transit and warned close to one million people in the entire city and some of its suburbs to stay indoors as the hunt for his brother, Dzhokhar, went on. Businesses were asked not to open. People waiting at bus and subway stops were told to go home. From Watertown to Cambridge, police SWAT teams, sharpshooters and FBI agents with armored vehicles surrounded various buildings as police helicopters buzzed overhead. [Source]

U.S. Government Plans to Use Military Force Against Its Citizens and is Arming Some of Its Employees in Case of Civil Unrest and Martial Law

On December 29, 2010, the "Defense Support of Civil Authorities" DOD directive was signed by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense William J Lynn III. It remained largely unnoticed until The Washington Times ran an exposé on it on May 28, 2014 (beware of Santa's secret legislation). The directive authorizes "military support" of "civilian authorities" (law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels). A defense official proclaimed that the directive authorizes the government to use military force within the United States against its citizens. A year later, on December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which authorizes the indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of U.S. citizens. The ACLU's executive director said: “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and it can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

On January 21, 2013, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow wrote on his Facebook page: “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on U.S. citizens or not. Those who will not are being removed.” Garrow later followed up the post by adding the man who told him this is “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

The U.S. military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens. In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked U.S. Army military police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 "Internment and Resettlement Operations." The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law. On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a “warning shot will not be fired.” [Source]

Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens

May 28, 2014

Bill Gertz, The Washington Times - A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.

The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters. Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.

The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.

Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.

Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include:

• Department of Agriculture
• Railroad Retirement Board
• Tennessee Valley Authority
• Office of Personnel Management,
• Consumer Product Safety Commission,
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
• Education Department

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

Department of Homeland Security is Becoming America’s Domestic Standing Army

Confessions of a former TSA officer

January 1, 2015

The Week - My pained relationship with government security started in 2007. I needed a job to help pay my way through college in Chicago, and the Transportation Security Administration's callback, for a job as a security officer at O'Hare International Airport, was the first one I received. It was just a temporary thing, I told myself — side income for a year or two as I worked toward a degree in creative writing. It wasn't like a recession would come along and lock me into the job or anything.

I hated it from the beginning. It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly, and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots — the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying.

Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus and the Government's Hunt for Terrorists

After the January 7, 2015 shootings at Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical weekly magazine, France is "waging war" against terrorism. France has put the country on high alert and deployed 122,000 police and troops to "protect citizens." And the Belgian government decided to start using its army for some "public security tasks." Across Europe, anxiety has grown as the "hunt" continues for terrorists.

The 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act in the United States restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement, but a 1994 Defense Department Directive allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations to "save lives, prevent suffering, or mitigate great property damage." [Source]

The John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (PL 109-364) virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial law. It "subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay. Provisions of the NDAA are so radical that they actually remove much of the protections American citizens have had since 1878 under the Posse Comitatus Act and the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

Section 1032 of the NDAA bill puts civilians who would otherwise not be subject to military control into military detention, thus removing the protections of the Posse Comitatus act. Like Section 1031, this would include indefinite imprisonment of civilians apprehended inside of the United States. Section 1032 does not authorize the military to detain civilians without charge or trial -- it, in fact, mandates it. The protection against the government using the military for law enforcement activities within the United States under Posse Comitatus would be eliminated under Section 1032. And the ACLU points out that “all state and federal law enforcement would be preempted by the military.” Previously the state and local law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice had the primary responsibility to enforce anti-terrorism laws within the United States. The NDAA would, in the case of many civilian suspects, remove federal state and local law enforcement from the process of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution and imprisonment and hand said powers over to the military.

In December 2011 Infowars received a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements,” the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to Infowars by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States. KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrived soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.

Latin for "you [should] have the body," habeas corpus is a legal action, or writ, by which those imprisoned unlawfully can seek relief from their imprisonment. Derived from English common law, habeas corpus first appeared in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is the oldest human right in the history of English-speaking civilization. The doctrine of habeas corpus stems from the requirement that a government must either charge a person or let him go free.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”—Article I, Section IX of the U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution specifies that, "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." The Constitution is clear in indicating that suspension is a possibility in specific cases, but vague as to who determines when public safety is in danger. Clearly, it is the President's duty to invoke the suspension, but is it also his duty to determine when an invasion or rebellion threatens the public safety? Or is that the job of the Congress?

Habeas corpus, a fundamental tenet of English common law, does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Its importance was such that it was enshrined in the Constitution itself. And it is of such magnitude that all other rights, including those in the Bill of Rights, are dependent upon it. Without habeas corpus, the significance of all other rights crumbles.

The right of habeas corpus was important to the Framers of the Constitution because they knew from personal experience what it was like to be labeled enemy combatants, imprisoned indefinitely and not given the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge. Believing that such arbitrary imprisonment is “in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny,” the Founders were all the more determined to protect Americans from such government abuses.

Both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit governmental deprivations of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment serves three distinct functions in modern constitutional doctrine: "First, it incorporates [against the States] specific protections defined in the Bill of Rights....Second, it contains a substantive component, sometimes referred to as ‘substantive due process.'...Third, it is a guarantee of fair procedure, sometimes referred to as ‘procedural due process.'..." Daniels v. Williams (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring).



Habeas corpus is an important piece of legislation that should be available in every country. International efforts to establish an international Habeas Corpus court are under way. Today, many democratic countries have the right to petition for habeas corpus. For example, in Australia, the habeas corpus writ originates from the English common law. In Canada, the habeas corpus legal action is also an English law inheritance.

Australia also saw in 2005 some form of habeas corpus suspension when the Australian parliament passed a piece of law called the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005 that limits the right of habeas corpus for those who are suspected of terrorist activities and arrested on these charges. In Canada, everyone has the right to receive proof for their arrest and contest the decision if evidence is not provided.

Indian judiciary system also uses a doctrine of locus standi, where if a detained person is not in the position to request a habeas corpus petition, a third party can intervene and file the petition in his name. Ireland also grants the right to habeas corpus, but the procedure is not binding during war or in a state of armed rebellion. Malaysia is another example of a country where the right to habeas corpus exists, but it is limited by various internal acts. For example, in Malaysia, the Internal Security Act of 1960 limits habeas corpus by allowing detention without a fair trial for those who are suspected of internal unrest or dangerous activities. In New Zealand, habeas corpus may be petitioned to fight against unfair arrest. The habeas corpus in New Zealand can be used against the government or against private individuals.

All in all, the right for habeas corpus is an important piece of law that gives individuals the power to resist unfair arrest.

 

European police arrest over 2 dozen in anti-terror sweeps

January 16, 2016

AP - French, German and Belgian police arrested more than two dozen suspects in anti-terrorism raids Friday, as European authorities rushed to thwart more attacks by people with links to Mideast Islamic extremists.

Rob Wainwright, head of the police agency Europol, told The Associated Press that foiling terror attacks has become "extremely difficult" because Europe's 2,500-5,000 radicalized Muslim extremists have little command structures and are increasingly sophisticated.

Highlighting those fears, a bomb scare forced Paris to evacuate its busy Gare de l'Est train station during Friday morning rush hour. No bomb was found. A man also briefly took two hostages at a post office northwest of Paris, but police said the hostage-taker had mental issues and no links to terror.

Visiting the tense French capital, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met President Francois Hollande and toured the sites of last week's terror attacks: the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket. Twenty people, including the three gunmen, were killed.

One of those Paris attackers had proclaimed allegiance to the Islamic State group, and French and German authorities arrested at least 14 other people Friday suspected of links to IS.

Thirteen more people were detained in Belgium and two were arrested in France in a separate anti-terror sweep following a firefight Thursday in the eastern Belgian city of Verviers. Two suspected terrorists were killed and a third wounded in that raid on a suspected terrorist hideout. Federal magistrate Eric Van der Sypt said the suspects were within hours of implementing a plan to kill police, either on the street or in their offices.

German special police units leave an apartment building in the Wedding district in Berlin January 16 …

In more than a dozen raids Friday, Belgian forces found four military-style weapons including Kalashnikov assault rifles, Van der Sypt said. They also found several police uniforms, which could have allowed the suspects to pass themselves off as police officers.

Belgian officials were reasonably confident they dismantled the core of an important terrorist cell but Van der Sypt said more suspects could be at large.

"I cannot confirm that we arrested everyone in this group," he told reporters.

Authorities did not give many details about those detained or killed in Belgium but said most were citizens and some had returned from Syria. They stressed that the targets of their crackdown had no known connections to last week's attacks in France.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Friday that while there was no apparent operational connection between the two terror groups, "the link that exists is the will to attack our values."

Special police force guards the entrance of a house in Berlin as police raids several residences in  …

Belgium has seen a large number of residents join extremists in Syria.

"It's the worst affected country in Europe relative to population size," said Peter Neumann of the London-based International Center for the Study of Radicalization. 

He estimates 450 people have left Belgium to fight with Islamic radicals in Syria and that 150 of them have returned home.

Around the world, protesters rallied against Charlie Hebdo in several countries Friday. The satirical newspaper had 12 employees slain for lampooning the Muslim Prophet Muhammad but it defiantly put a new Muhammad cartoon on the cover of its first post-attacks issue this week. The issue sold out its 3 million copies — more than 50 times its usual press run.

In Karachi, Pakistani students clashed with police and an Agence France-Presse photographer was shot and wounded in the melee. In Algeria, demonstrators protesting Charlie Hebdo thronged the streets of Algiers, the capital.

Many Muslims view the caricatures of Muhammad as a profound insult to Islam.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) lays a wreath with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius at  …

Across Europe, anxiety has grown as the hunt continues for anyone who helped the three Paris gunmen — French police earlier told AP there could be up to six possible accomplices.

The Paris prosecutor's office said at least 12 people were arrested in anti-terrorism raids in the area, targeting people linked to kosher market gunman Amedy Coulibaly, who claimed ties to the Islamic State group. France has put the country on high alert and deployed 122,000 police and troops to protect citizens, especially at Jewish schools and transport hubs.

The Belgian government on Friday decided to start using its army for some public security tasks, part of a 12-point anti-terror plan lawmakers agreed upon in less than 24 hours since the deadly clash Thursday night.

The government will also expand legislation to make traveling abroad with a terror goal a crime and allowing authorities to withdraw ID from people suspected of traveling to such areas.

In Berlin, police arrested two men Friday morning on suspicion of recruiting fighters for the Islamic State group in Syria. Prosecutors said 250 police officers raided 11 residences at dawn, part of a months-old investigation into Turkish extremists.

Kerry's visit to France came after the Obama administration apologized for not sending a higher-level delegation to Sunday's massive rally in Paris, which drew more than 1 million people to denounce terrorism. Hollande thanked Kerry for offering support.

France's President Francois Hollande, left, welcomes U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, at the  …

"You've been victims yourselves of an exceptional terrorist attack on Sept. 11. You know what it means for a country," Hollande said. "Together, we must find appropriate responses."

In a separate speech to diplomats, Hollande said France is "waging war" against terrorism and will not back down from its international military operations against Islamic extremists in Iraq and North Africa. France's Parliament voted this week to extend airstrikes against Islamic State extremists in Iraq.

Belgian authorities are separately looking for possible links between a man they arrested in the southern city of Charleroi for illegal trade in weapons and Coulibaly.

Several other countries are also involved in the hunt for possible accomplices to Coulibaly and the gunmen who attacked the newspaper, brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi.

A senior Iraqi intelligence official told the AP on Friday that Iraqi intelligence officers warned their French counterparts two months ago that a group linked to Khorasan in Syria was plotting an attack in Paris. The official spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to brief media.

Iraq's prime minister also warned in September of possible attacks in New York and Paris.

Related: 

• Executive Orders Establishing Martial Law in the U.S.
• Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens without Charge or Trial - The National Defense Authorization Act
• NDAA Places U.S. Citizens Under Military Rule

Totalitarian Governments Don't Want Citizens to Have Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

A Second Amendment right to gun ownership is a constitutional right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

70 Million People Were Rounded Up and Killed in the 20th Century Because of Gun Control

Before we passively allow the feds to strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts.

The following is a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued.

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated (Stalin ruled from April 3, 1922 - October 16, 1952).

3. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

4. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

5. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people. Being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 70 million. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

No matter how we might personally feel about the gun control issue, we should realize that every dictatorship ever in world history moved to remove guns and other weapons from the people!

Related:

Will the U.S. Military Fire Upon U.S. Citizens? 
Round Up of Americans Under Martial Law
Military Detention Bill