BluegrassBulletin.com

Government Cartoon Training Children To Submit

When the communists in the 50's vowed to take over America without firing a shot they focused on indoctrinating the next generations with propaganda via the schools and universities.  The technique has now re-educated our nation into being very much more accepting of socialism and other government controls.

The same techniques are now being used to make children more compliant with government intrusions into their personal privacy and away from the concepts embodied in the Fourth Amendment and the remainder of the Bill of Rights.  Here is just one example of how kids are being taught to think.  Removing distrust of government and teaching submission to government are the lessons of this cartoon.

 

More On The Militarization Of Police

This from the Wall Street Journal:

Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe's emperors and monarchs.

What would it take to dial back such excessive police measures? The obvious place to start would be ending the federal grants that encourage police forces to acquire gear that is more appropriate for the battlefield. Beyond that, it is crucial to change the culture of militarization in American law enforcement.

Hollywood Destroys Washington, Is There A Hidden Plot?

Last week I went to see the new movie "Olympus Has Fallen".  It is the story of an attack on the United States from a militant group of North Koreans who infiltrate the White House, kidnap the president, vice president and the secretary of defense then threaten to destroy America with our own nuclear weapons.

Of course Morgan Freeman, the speaker of the House, is installed as acting president and they pull out all the stops to save the real president.  Why?  I guess one elected official is so important that putting the rest of the nation at risk is worth nuclear destruction.  As for me, I kept wondering why they didn't just let the terrorists kill a few dispensable individuals and save 300 million more.  In war, we do it all the time.

Now another movie is about to come out, "White House Down".  In it  domestic terrorists blow up the White House, the Capitol and pretty much destroy everything in an attempt to get the president played by Jamie Foxx.  What is all of this about?

First, I think Hollywood is tapping into an anti-Washington mood.  Second, I think they are giving ideas to bad guys.  Third, I think the combination of an anti-Washington mood, coupled with a bunch of bad guys with bad ideas could inspire some sort of copy cat effort which would of course not surprise anybody, right?

So if such an scenario is even slightly predictable, why would Hollywood risk inspiring ANY kind of attack on the president?

Well, what if somebody wanted an event, a crisis, out of which and opportunity might arise for immediate imposition of martial law, citizen arrests, gun confiscations, suspension of elections any number of other "emergency" measures?  How might they create such an event?

Well, with enough pressure on the public, enough radical talk about "us versus them" and a climate in which the people wouldn't be surprised if something like this might happen, anything is possible.

And how would the government prepare for such and event, I mean, just in case the movies from Hollywood provided the proper atmosphere for it to take place?

Maybe they would buy a lot of ammunition, and armored vehicles and weapons, and put them into the hands of a "civilian national security force" just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.

Maybe they would begin hiring internment/resettlement specialists in the military to deal with a large number of arrestees and publish a bulletin identifying high risk people who should be watched more carefully. 

Maybe they would put a national terror alert page up on the Internet and inspire people to report suspicious activity to the government so they could create a paper trail through the "normal channels" from which to draft the cover story about the perpetrators of any crimes against the government.

So go watch both movies, see how much the nation is willing to risk to save the president, and how important it is in both flicks that the president be saved at all costs.  And then you tell me what is going on.

Why All The Ammo Purchases Barry?

 

As we reported earlier, the Department of Homeland Security has just purchased enough ammunition to fight the Iraqi war for 30 years.  Many have wondered why.  This report from the Daily Bail, suggests one possibility.  Lost to history is the story of widespread riots during the Great Depression.

This newsreel footage is long, over 8 minutes, but gives a very clear picture of what the DHS might be preparing for, at least so some think.

<P.S. Some also think the volume of ammo purchased might be smaller.>

 

Related articles

Coming Civil Unrest? Department of Homeland Security Orders Another 21.6 Million Rounds of Ammo

Homeland Security Now Armed With Enough Ammo for 24 Year-Long Iraq War

Tried To Warn You, Can't Get Our Guns? Get Our Ammo

Homeland Security Buying Up All The Ammo

Lunatics Are In Charge

You better watch what you say in an airport.  You better not criticize the TSA.  You better not joke about anything or you will face invasive searches, be thrown off your plane, placed in temporary custody or maybe even arrested and charged with a crime.  The lunatics are now in charge and you should beware.

Yesterday, we told you about Arijit Guha, the Arizona State University Ph.D. student who says his shirt mocking the Transportation Security Administration led to him and his wife getting kicked off his flight returning to Phoenix over the weekend.

While waiting at the gate, Guha says, one of the airline's supervisors told him his shirt made employees and passengers "uncomfortable." [Phoenix New Times]

Of course free speech is not any big deal anymore.  You can't even joke about anything at the airport because the people in charge are humorless lunatics.

On a recent flight to New York, Draco Slaughter, 75, was arrested on terrorism-related charges. His crime? He made a bad joke to a flight attendant. Slaughter did not exactly slay his audience. The joke not only resulted in a federal criminal charge but could result in seven years incarceration — the ultimate bomb of a joke.

Government websites such as the TSA’s expressly warn that “jokes … are not tolerated” and “can result in criminal or civil penalties.” However, federal law prohibits giving false information “willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life.” This is an anti-hoax — not an anti-joke — law designed to punish people who want to cause panic with false reports. Most joke cases involve people who clearly indicate at the time that they are joking.

In Slaughter’s case, he joked that “there could be a bomb in there” when a flight attendant found his bag. Unable to pay a ridiculous $50,000 bail, he remained in jail. He was not charged with illegal jokes but falsely reporting an incident. Prosecutors pretended that his joke was an actual report of a bomb and then charged him for essentially not having a bomb.

Dozens of travelers are reportedly arrested each year in airports for making jokes. Most of these arrests are cases of the clueless meeting the humorless. [Turley]

So, just in case you were wondering what all this means, I would remind you can always tell who controls your life by looking at who you are not allowed to criticize.

In The Shadow Of Sumter

In January 1861 as Abraham Lincoln was preparing to take office in March the people of the sovereign state of South Carolina perceived that his presidency posed a threat and its legislature seceded from the union of states.  This action was the starting point for the creation of the Confederate States of America.

Located in South Carolina was a federal fort named Sumter.  Once South Carolina had seceded the ownership of that fort was claimed by the state.  President Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor, refused to turn over ownership of several federal forts to the seceding states.

After Lincoln took office, however, he saw Buchanan's position as an opportunity to assert his authority and declared that secession was illegal. Though the fort commander at Sumpter had agreed to surrender the fort as soon as his provisions ran out, Lincoln made it very well known that he intended to send federal troops there to resupply Fort Sumpter thereby extending the federal claim.  South Carolina perceived the occupation of their state by federal troops to be a threat. Confederate soldiers were sent to block the re-supply and thus force the surrender.

On April 12, 1861 shots were fired between the federal troops and the soldiers of South Carolina and the Confederate States of America.  These are called the first shots of the American Civil War.

Today there is a growing unrest in America.  There is a sense that the federal government has gone too far, reached too deeply into the lives of individuals, ignored the sovereignty of the states and has plans to do more, not less, as the years go by.  Many Americans perceive this as a threat.

The government knows this.

Small Wars Journal, a respected publication closely followed in the U.S. military, has published an article entitled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future” by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It lays out not just the military but the legal basis for military operations to crush domestic insurrections in the United States.

What is clear is that, again, Congress is allowing for such preparations without any serious discussion or review. The assumption of legality will soon become the acceptance of legality in domestic use of military forces.

The underlying scenarios are set for as soon as 2016 if the economy does not improve and unrest grows. Focusing on a town called Darlington, the article explores an order to “Fix Darlington, but don’t destroy it!”

The authors write “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.”

The authors spend comparatively little time considering the constitutional and legal barriers to the operations. They details how “Federal forces continue to tighten the noose as troops seize and secure power and water stations, radio and TV stations, and hospitals.” Yet, legal limitations are treated as largely irrelevant. [Turley]

Can't say that I haven't tried to warn you, again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Obama To Severely Reduce Armed Pilot Program

The Obama administration has cited increases in airport screening as justification for a severe cut in funding for the "armed pilot" program.

The President’s wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program.

The President’s budget lists the FFDO program as one of the few “cuts” to federal spending.  They have reduced the program from the $25 million they received this year to $12 million for FY2013.  This massive cut to the program would destroy it.

The Obama Administration is arguing that the FFDO program was to be a band aid until the federal government could set up screening to prevent another incident of aviation hijacking and terrorism.  They are wrong, because a rational screening and security regime would include a last line of defense for pilots if other security measures fail. [RedState]