The Bostom Bombing and my 2 cents.
Regardless of who is reasonable, like a mad middle east bomber, Our own government or a lone insane bomber or an accident. There will be only one group who will be blamed for this action. It would be us people who do not believe in big government who believe in traditional liberties and rights. CNN is already starting to do this. Saying it was a anti government right wing group who is reasonable.
You can make a bet Obama will find a way of using this to push his anti rights bills and executive orders through. The Southern Poverty Law Center would surly use this for their political aims at slandering of any who is against big brother. Along with any other leftest think tank you can think of. Along with their puppets in Congress.
I dread the next couple of weeks as this blows up and more of our rights will be forcibly taken from our hands for the sake of security and safety or any other excuses our so called leaders in Washington can use to pass laws and regulations on the rest of us.
“A biker’s power and intimidating image can even the playing field for a little kid who has been hurt. If the man who hurt this little girl calls or drives by, or even if she is just scared, another nightmare, the bikers will ride over and stand guard all night.
If she is afraid to go to school, they will take her and watch until she’s safely inside.
And if she has to testify against her abuser in court, they will go, too, walking with her to the witness stand and taking over the first row of seats.”
I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful
New York’s Psychiatric Police State
January 21, 2013
It’s a done deal.
Governor Cuomo, along with Democrat and Republican legislators, is ramming through a bill to restrict gun ownership, re-classify weapons in order to ban them—and, in a far-reaching move, create psychiatrists as cops who must report patients to law-enforcement, in order to keep the patients from owning a weapon.
Psychiatrists must report patients “who could potentially harm themselves or others.” If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.
This means a comprehensive data base, accessible by law-enforcement personnel and anyone else involved in doing background checks. These “problematic” patients will be kept from buying a new weapon, too. Otherwise, the law would have no teeth.
As usual, the devil is in the details. Psychiatrists will err on the side of caution and report many patients. No shrink wants to blink into television cameras after one of his patients has just shot his father.
Patients who want to own weapons will lie to psychiatrists about their thoughts and feelings, never admitting they’re considering suicide or murder.
After such a murder, a psychiatrist will say: “He never said anything about killing anybody. Here, look at my notes. There’s nothing there.”
For this and other reasons, such as the existence of the data base, doctor-patient confidentiality will go out the window.
Therefore, the practice of psychiatry, which already minimizes talk therapy and merely dispenses drugs, will move even further in that direction. Tight-lipped patients, who don’t want to go on a police list, will seek an office visit with the sole motive of obtaining a drug.
Since all the emphasis is now on “mentally ill patients who are prone to violence,” the possibility of indicting the drugs in violence will recede over the horizon.
SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) and other brain drugs do, in fact, cause people to go crazy and commit violent crimes, including murder. This is an open secret in the psychiatric profession, and the public is becoming more aware of it every day.
But it will be swept under the carpet.
Under the new law, a psychiatrist can’t be prosecuted for failing to report a patient who later commits murder, as long as the psychiatrist “acted in good faith.” The meaning of that phrase is broad enough to automatically cast blanket exoneration on most shrinks, which closes off the chance a psychiatrist will be pilloried for prescribing a drug he knows can induce violence in the patient.
This New York law will be copied and passed by other states, and in the end, we will see a national data base of psychiatric patients.
The official attitude will be: anyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential killer.
This will give rise to protests on behalf of “a new underclass”: psychiatric patients. Advocates will arise to take up their cause. Court cases will abound. The whole business will devolve into a complete mess.
But out of it will come a hands-on partnership between cops and shrinks, who’ll march should to shoulder into their version of a psychiatric police state.
Seventy-two hour mandatory holds in psych wards for “observation” will expand. During this period of incarceration, shrinks will dose inmates hard with drugs, in order to make them more docile, because no psych ward wants to be accused of releasing a patient who then goes on to kill people.
Drugs to subdue the mind in that way are very powerful. They are called anti-psychotics, or major tranquilizers. As has been shown, they induce tremors, which are signals of motor brain damage.
We can expect to see hundreds of thousands more people, perhaps millions, who are damaged, permanently, by these drugs.
The motto will become: destroy the patient, before he can destroy others.
As the crown on all this, people who have ever professed political ideas outside the mainstream, and so end up in a database of “potential threats to the State,” can be kept from owning a weapon, merely by finding a way to get them into a psychiatrist’s office, on any pretext. Once there, the psychiatrist can report them as prone to harming themselves or others, and that will function as a bar to possessing a gun.
New York has just created a door that swings in both directions. A huge number of people who are seeing psychiatrists can be kept from gun ownership. And people who can see with their eyes what this country has turned into can be turned, on cooked-up technicalities, into psychiatric patients. Once in the system, they, too, can be denied all 2nd Amendment rights.
It will undoubtedly be called “The 2nd Amendment Exclusion.”
Coming to your neighborhood.
Jon Rappoport is the author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Mmmhmm… Now I see… One of the fucking anarcho-loser types…
Unbelievable. I hope my followers see this because I am very much not an anarchist at all. I am not opposed to the existence of government or police. You are trying to stereotype me and it’s not working out well for you. Your arguments are so off topic, I wonder what the point is for you anymore.Yeah, that shit will go real far. For the record, yes, I DO have to sign up again… Why? Because I can’t justify taking 6 years of work and pissing it all away to walk away with nothing more than unappreciative little pricks like you giving me a big “fuck you” for swearing to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic, all because you care more about some little fucking kid in a third world country than you do about your own people.
Wow, that’s a mouthful. I will try to address your fallacies one by one.
First, nothing in your response illustrated that you are FORCED to stay doing what you’re doing now. You’re only saying you don’t WANT to. And if that’s your sole reasoning, then it is quite clear that you do NOT have to. I was right.
Second, many of us are unappreciative because you are not using your brain. You are not defending The People and the constitution. No one is trying to attack the United States. The US Military, not only has been handed over to NATO and the UN, but the vast majority of conflicts the United States has been in over its short little existence have been unnecessary and unconstitutional wars that didn’t respect the process of requiring a deceleration of war. The United States government is bought and owned by financial institutions and corporations. You are working for them. You are doing NOTHING but helping drown this nation in debt. You have been brainwashed into believing that you are actually doing good when you really are doing harm.
So perhaps you should do your fucking homework if you’re going to claim to defend the Constitution. What about the enemies right here that are asking you to kill people in other countries who are of no real threat to this country? How about we invest all this money into defending our own ass, rather than war mongering, nation building and stealing resources around the world? If you haven’t figured out that you’re working for a criminal enterprise by now, you’re hopeless. And you deserve the symbolic “FUCK YOU” that you have received.
If you care about the fucking people so much, shut your fucking mouth and listen to what they’re saying. What good are you if you’re not sticking up for them?You know why I believe the way I do?
The question should be: Do I care?It’s not for world peace, it’s not for the people in other countries, it’s in spite of them. I believe in non-intervention because the rest of the world has the same mentality people like you do
You believe in non-interventionism but you work for the US military? HAHAHAHAHA. That’s like being a Jainist and blowing yourself up in a shopping mall.… They’re unappreciative little bastards and don’t deserve any fucking help.
Then stop helping them. PLEASE. :)I would flatten an entire Iraqi town if it meant bringing my guys back home, but you, someone who has likely never been in a warzone, would never understand what that’s like…
Actually, no, I wouldn’t kill an entire city of innocent people to save my friend or one of my family members because my morals are consistent. I don’t believe two wrongs make a right. I would do whatever I could to save them, but beyond that, I couldn’t be expected to hurt innocent people because of it. You’re like one of those roided out hooorah, die hard militarists who put their units above all other principal. The flaw here is obvious to most people. I wonder why you can’t grasp the concept. You should really think critically about that question.
“I have never asked another person, police officer or not, to agree with my morals. I only ask that he agree with his own.” Yeah, and say that a given police officer finds it moral to procecute drug users… Then what?
I’ve already answered that. He should continue with what his morals say is right. It will eventually catch up with him. Him and his family will have to carry the burden of blame and social rejection. And depending on how far it all went, he should be held to criminal prosecution for violating his oath. The federal government has no legal right to criminalize the personal consumption of drugs. So if you’re a federal prosecutor, and you’re exercising power under the federal government that the US Constitution doesn’t afford, you should be prepared for the possibility that one day, your own version of the Nuremburg Trials will be at your door.
The police officers understand what’s legal and illegal and accept that as moral.
Which is why they’re stupid. Obviously, law is regardless of morality. How many examples would you like?
People like you just want something to complain about.
My mother used to tell me, “If you can’t find something wrong with the government, you’re not trying hard enough.”
She was right. And so it goes that perfection and prosperity with proper balance will never be had if we don’t dig into the details and work out the kinks of our society. You’re still advocating that people stop complaining and just be happy with the shit society they live in run by plutocratic banks. Fuck that. That kind of mentality is for the weak.
… If he’s prosecuting because he has to, “Oh, that’s wrong!” If he’s prosecuting because he believes in the law, then it’s, “Cops are fucking assholes!” Get real…
I am very real. And I didn’t say those quotes up there. You’re misrepresenting my argument. Apparently, my argument is solid enough that it is only through misrepresentation that you’re able to ridicule it.
Police enforce the laws as they stand because cops are human, they have different sets of morals.
No, police enforce the laws because they’re being paid to and many of them get off on strutting around on a power trip. Cops and robbers is a childhood game that some people never fully got over.
Laws are written so that there’s one standard for everyone to follow, not having some that will prosecute against some things, but not others, all entirely dependent upon that cop’s morals.
What’s wrong with that? Let’s say I’m a prosecutor and I do my job to the best of my ability, and some case hits my desk and after careful investigation, I recognize that the person I’m going after is innocent. I should have the ability to say “no… I won’t do this. I didn’t sign up for this. I won’t prosecute the innocent.” And if your job entails that sort of thing on a regular basis and it bothers you, you shouldn’t do it. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If one prosecutor won’t do it, the state will find another one who will. But the blood will not be on your hands. In order to work for many branches of the government, you have to be willing to separate your morals from yourself, else you have to be completely ignorant. I cannot do that, nor could I ever respect anyone who could. Hint hint.
There’s a difference between complaining to people in town and complaining online.
Not at all.
Complaining in a place like Tumblr will never get anywhere.
And that’s where you’re wrong again. It’s actually more beneficial to complain online that it is to complain to your little neighborhood.
You know what I do when I have issues?
Kill a family of brown people?
I take it public.
How is “taking it public” different from “taking it to the internet”?
Taking it public will get people around town talking about it. Taking it to just tumblr will get a few people talking about it… But it’s never in a halfway mature way.
That’s not true at all. There is strength in numbers on the internet. Shit can get done on a national level. Just look what we all accomplished with SOPA? Yeah… that totally refutes what you just said.
It’s “All cops are fascist pigs!” and “Fuck statist neocons!” There’s almost never any logic behind half the bitching, and when arguments ARE made, they’re weak and present so radical a change that most people, especially the politicians, will dismiss it as teenage stupidity.
All cops are bastards. There is no such thing as a good cop. The reason is because cops are not individuals acting on their own morals, but rather a group of functionaries who have, as per the terms of their jobs, agreed to set aside their morals and act as obedient agents of the state.
As for the anarchist rhetoric on Tumblr, I agree it’s annoying. But those people are entitled to their opinion and I often find myself arguing with them on my other blog.
My position is wrong?
No, your position is unconstitutional, and thus “wrong” legally and ethically. Now, since you said that you would level an entire city of innocent people, then I would also say that you are wrong morally as well.
To you, it may be… Then again… If I used what I would assess would be your logic, I would just say to do away with the police, fire department, and any government service… That wouldn’t last but a week.
I have never advocated for that. I am not your common police brutality blog. I am reasonable. I think any civilized society needs someone to do the guarding. I certainly champion fire departments and other government services as being completely necessary. So stop trying to box me into these little black flag sterotypes that you use to try an ad-hom your way out of an argument that you lost an hour ago.
If there’s no one to enforce laws, why would anyone follow them? There’s no need for a police state, but at the same time, there is a need to have police. Besides, who are you to tell me that my views are wrong? Just because my views conflict with yours doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
I already explained this above. You keep rehashing the same old shit. Make your point, be done with it, so I don’t have to repeat myself.
I don’t like your take on the police, but I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you’re wrong…
Clearly you don’t even know my position on the police as you’ve demonstrated clearly here. Anyone following my blog for long enough will tell you that I am NOT against the existence of police.
You should hop off your high horse and get real… Not everyone will agree with you and that doesn’t make them wrong, regardless of what you think…
No, you’re wrong because you voluntarily participate in a criminal enterprise. This makes you a liar and a trader to your country. You’re ignorant cannon fodder. That’s all you are.
The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.
The crucial monopoly is the State’s control of the use of violence: of the police and armed services, and of the courts – the locus of ultimate decision-making power in disputes over crimes and contracts.
The plans differ; the planners are all alike…
After repeated humiliation, White House raises signature requirement for “We the People” petitions to 100,000
There have been petitions by at least 47 states requesting to secede from the Union. There have been petitions for the White House to commission the construction a Death Star space station. There have been dozens of embarrassingly successful petitions that the White House has been forced to answer.
Finally, the White House has had enough humiliation and is raising the bar for response to it’s ridiculous “We The People” petitions to 100,000 signatures before the Obama administration will give an official response.
from the White House:
When we launched We the People, none of us knew how popular it would be, but it’s exceeded our wildest expectations. Through the past year, interest in We the People exploded and we’re closing in on 10 million signatures.
When we first raised the threshold — from 5,000 to 25,000 — we called it “a good problem to have.” Turns out that “good problem” is only getting better, so we’re making another adjustment to ensure we’re able to continue to give the most popular ideas the time they deserve.
Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration.
If the White House really gave a rip about how as few as 100,000 Americans felt, they wouldn’t have passed Obamacare, they wouldn’t have raised taxes, they wouldn’t be trying to raise the debt ceiling, and they wouldn’t be announcing new gun regulations tomorrow.
All of the services commonly thought to require the State—from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property—can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.