Sunday, June 15, 2014

Ten Steps to Subversion

TEN STEPS TO SUBVERSION
E. Lyman
“A general Dissolution of Principles and Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole force of the Common Enemy. “While the People are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their Virtue they will be ready to surrender their Liberties to the first external or internal invader. … If Virtue and Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great Security.”  Samuel Adams 


Too often, local and world affairs appear to be unfolding as if someone were following a master script. In this context, these “ten steps to subversion” are fascinating.
Said to have been found in Dusseldorf, Germany, by Allied Forces in 1919, they were then printed in the U.S. in the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise (Oklahoma). Another source labels these “Communist Rules for the Russian Revolution, 1918″. In 1946, the attorney general of Florida obtained them from a known member of the Communist Party, who acknowledged that the “rules” were then still a part of the Communist program for the United States.  Nearly the same text was found in the purportedly 18th century Illuminati Protocols (labeled fake but written by someone).
Curiously, this plan fits in with recent times and seems to parallel the government and corporate agenda of today.
1. Corrupt the young: Get them away from spirituality. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
Some people not in the “young” age group might say this trend has been going on for a long time. For example, blatant sex can be seen in most advertising — so much so that it is difficult to remember when it was otherwise.
The operative goal here is a moral corruption of youth through excessively materialistic values, resulting in overwhelming superficiality. If a whole generation grows up to be concerned only about one’s personal benefit and enjoyment — the enjoyment being based on material possessions and superficial immediate gratification — society will not find it easy to fight for the survival of the community or the nation. It will be a fractured society, one that would be easy to take over and control by force.
We need to be aware of this goal and try to mitigate against it. Some may say that today’s youth have already gone in the direction of this first goal. But there is always a percentage who are more deeply aware and who will fight for higher visions. 
2. Get control of all means of publicity.
By making one or two corporations control all the print media, and also television, this goal is being achieved. 
3. Get people’s minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and immoral movies.
This one, again, sounds dated, but the concept isn’t. How about, “Get people’s minds off what the government’s backers are making it do, by offering a great many sports on TV, and a multitude of soap operas and sitcoms liberally laced with sex, violence and scandal. In the news (TV and print media), feature as much news as possible about disasters, violence and murder. Don’t, however, print any news that would allow people to piece together what is really going on in the world. 
4. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
We see this all the time. In B.C., one of the favourite topics to divide communities relate to land claims and indigenous rights. In 1995, we had a classic example in the Gustafsen Lake stand-off. The mainstream media made people believe that the Native sovereigntists were “after your private property”. Even after the Mounties self-condemned themselves in a “training video”, where they said they wanted to “smear the Indians” and make themselves “look good”, the disinformation continued in the major media.
Other popular divisive topics are illegal refugees, immigration, taxes, and various irrelevant aspects of government. Important issues that affect democracy and sovereignty — like the global corporate takeover via so-called “trade” deals where, for example, transnationals can sue governments but people cannot sue corporations — are never discussed. Nor are the real goals behind globalization. All we are told is that it is inevitable and it is good for us. 
5. Destroy the people’s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and disgrace.
One popular way to destroy people’s faith in their leaders is to marginalize these leaders by giving them no media access. We have seen this in connection with leaders of new political parties. During the last two federal elections, one of Canada’s elder statesmen, the Honourable Paul Hellyer, a former deputy prime minister, was deliberately humiliated by not being allowed in on the “major” leaders’ debates — because “minor” parties were not deemed to be of importance.
Potential leaders are also marginalized by being made to seem unreliable or lightweight. David Orchard is a young, charismatic “natural” leader. He has been pushed aside, even though he came second in a democratic vote for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.
This list could go on. The practice is particularly common, even in the Native community where hereditary chiefs have been shunted out of power, replaced by government/corporate protégés. 
6. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
We have a brilliant example of this in the recent U.S. presidential election. Both George W. Bush and Vice-president Al Gore extolled American democracy in the face of a blatant power grab. Massive electoral irregularities in the State of Florida gave the presidency to Mr. Bush. However, subsequent informal counts have shown that Bush did not win the state or the nation. Nevertheless, he has been ensconced in the White House. 
7. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce years of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
We have seen a rise in the public debt since our federal government moved away from using the publicly owned Bank of Canada to finance its expenditures, thus increasing private borrowing with interest. Inflationary interest rates in the ‘80s cost many Canadians their homes and businesses. After the introduction of the FTA and NAFTA, the country has never recovered. The floodgate was opened to the foreign takeover of Canadian resources, with the accompanying loss of sovereignty. It is correct to say that many Canadians are not content with the situation, but they are not sure how to fix it. 
8. Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government toward such disorders.
We saw this plan in Canada in the 1970s. The lenient attitude was evident when large wage increases were permitted, unrelated to any growth in productivity, and a subsequent inflation in prices. Although it is denied, inflation continues today, to the detriment of people on fixed incomes. 
9. Cause breakdown of the old moral values — honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
These values were once dear to almost any thriving traditional society, having strong currency in European and North American society as recently as 100 years ago.
The Indigenous nations of North America lived by these moral values. Clearly one could not survive in the natural context without being able to trust one’s neighbours. Neighbours helped neighbours; clan helped clan. A family was a self-sufficient unit when it came to the procurement of food, shelter and clothing.
In the urban context, this simple equation has disappeared, replaced by an impersonal government and, increasingly, corporate infrastructure. Aside from being impersonal, this infrastructure is not responsive to the real needs of the individual citizen or family.
In this manner, self-sufficiency and ruggedness are lost in the metropolitan area context. If some disaster caused the loss of the supply infrastructure in our cities, people would starve because they’ve lost the skills of finding food for themselves. And due to huge rates of immigration, our numbers are inflated to the point that we could not put everyone out on the land to fend for themselves. Raiding parties would attack rural areas, causing starvation even where the food is grown. Corporate mega farms would become military encampments. Those pillaging for leftovers would be shot on sight. This actually happened under Communism in the Ukraine in the 1930s, with a loss of two million lives.
Whoever controls the food supply and drinking water is the complete master of all. The corporations are more aware of this than the average citizen, and they are busy modifying the food supply so that it can be controlled through patents — owned by the holders of the patents. Water is being commodified to give control to the transnational corporations. The current legal action under NAFTA by Sunbelt Water of California against Canada and B.C. is only the first salvo in the water wars. Recently a traditional chief revealed that bulk water exports are already taking place from the mid-coast regions. 
10. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscate them and leaving the populace helpless.
This final step is in progress in Canada today, under the pretext of reducing crime. Australia has already travelled this road and given the lie to this excuse. They have had rising violence and crime after their guns were confiscated. In every recent dictatorship, guns have been taken from the people. It is the final step of a global plan.
This plan appears to be the essence of the New World Order and the global corporate power grab. It requires no stretch of the imagination to believe that it is being used against Canadians today by its federal government.
Only awareness and concerted counter-action can hope to alter this plan. In the long term, it spells disaster for mankind.

Speak Your Mind


Friday, June 6, 2014

Exchange


Thursday, June 5, 2014

Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed

Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed

 
 

HOUSTON, Texas — Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil.

The photos illuminate the conditions of the U.S. Border Patrol’s processing centers, as well as the overwhelming task Border Patrol is facing.

Breitbart Texas Border Expert and Contributing Editor Sylvia Longmire reviewed the photos.

“Given the deteriorating security and economic conditions in the Central American countries where most of these children and adult immigrants came from, it's hard to understand how DHS didn't see this coming,” Longmire said. “The trend towards increased cross-border movement towards south Texas and away from Arizona has been apparent; the trend of Central Americans starting to outnumber Mexican crossers has been apparent. Even worse is believing that DHS knew this was coming, but didn't have the resources or ability to cut through bureaucratic red tape to prepare more quickly.

“Now the results of this mismanagement are thousands of individuals living in inhumane conditions for an indeterminate period of time, as well as exhausted and overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and CBP detention facilities," Longmire continued. "The Obama administration's band-aid fix has been to ship a good portion of these immigrants — many of whom are weak, emotionally vulnerable, sick, and confused — to other sectors as far as San Diego county in California and release them with no obligation other than to show up for a hearing in 15 days.

“Most of those released will abscond and never show up for their hearings, taking their chances that ICE won't have the time or resources to go looking for them," she added. "Until they can get to where they want to go, they're overwhelming local community resources in cities like Laredo, El Paso, and Tucson that haven't had enough time to prepare for this ‘solution.' This is an awful way to showcase what cartel and gang violence is doing to children and their families in Central America, and it's a humiliating example of what our government's inability to develop solid immigration and border security policies can cause.”

Breitbart Texas provides the internal U.S. government photos below.
Follow Brandon Darby on Twitter: @brandondarby 










































 
 
 

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.

 

Abstract

Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10⁻¹² to 10⁻⁶M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:

Estrogenic effect; Genistein; Glyphosate; Human breast cancer; T47D; T47D-KBluc

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Holder: Americans Opposed to Obama’s Transformation of US Guilty of ‘Quiet Prejudice’

Holder: Americans Opposed to Obama's Transformation of US Guilty of 'Quiet Prejudice'

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has suggested that critics of the Obama administration are motivated by race and referred to America as a "nation of cowards" on race issues while blasting Americans who resist more gun control laws, suggested that those opposed to President Barack Obama's policy agenda of "fundamental transformation" are quietly prejudiced.

In his Saturday commencement address at Morgan State University, a historically black university in Maryland, Holder said that even though there are no more "separate but equal" laws on the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the "vestiges of state-sanctioned discrimination continue to reverberate across the country even today."
He said America is done a disservice when they "trade the noisy discord of honest, tough, and vigorous debate for the quiet prejudice of inaction – and the cold silence of consent." To Holder, dialogue is insufficient to address the "hidden" racism in society but is "a necessary first step that must lead to action."
After comparing Obamacare to the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Holder suggested that those opposed to Obama's "year of action" are silently displaying their prejudices and suggested that "action" is needed in voting rights, school discipline, and criminal justice reform. He blasted voter ID laws and "zero-tolerance school discipline practices" that "affect black males at a rate three times higher than their white peers." The Justice Department's school guideline reforms have been heavily criticized for effectively forcing schools to enact "de facto racial quotas" in school discipline.
Holder also condemned a "criminal justice system that treats groups of people differently – and punishes them unequally" – because it has "a much more negative impact than misguided words that we can reject out of hand."
Even though there was near universal condemnation for Donald Sterling's and Cliven Bundy's comments about black Americans, Holder said that was not good enough because the public outrage merely masks "hidden" racism in society.
"But we ought not find contentment in the fact that these high-profile expressions of outright bigotry seem atypical and were met with such swift condemnation," he said. "Because if we focus solely on these incidents – on outlandish statements that capture national attention and spark outrage on Facebook and Twitter – we are likely to miss the more hidden, and more troubling, reality behind the headlines."
Holder said that while these incidents have "rightly been condemned by leaders, commentators, and citizens from all backgrounds and walks of life," the "policies that disenfranchise specific groups are more pernicious than hateful rants."
 

Monday, May 12, 2014

Show Us the Drone Memos

Show Us the Drone Memos

WASHINGTON — I BELIEVE that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate. I can’t imagine appointing someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
But President Obama is seeking to do just that. He has nominated David J. Barron, a Harvard law professor and a former acting assistant attorney general, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
While he was an official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Barron wrote at least two legal memos justifying the execution without a trial of an American citizen abroad. Now Mr. Obama is refusing to share that legal argument with the American people.
On April 30, I wrote to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, urging him to delay this nomination, pending a court-ordered disclosure of the first memo I knew about. Since that letter, I have learned more. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to all senators on May 6, noting that in the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, “there are at least eleven OLC opinions on the targeted killing or drone program.” It has not been established whether Mr. Barron wrote all those memos, but we do know that his controversial classified opinions provided the president with a legal argument and justification to target an American citizen for execution without a trial by jury or due process.
I believe that all senators should have access to all of these opinions. Furthermore, the American people deserve to see redacted versions of these memos so that they can understand the Obama administration’s legal justification for this extraordinary exercise of executive power. The White House may invoke national security against disclosure, but legal arguments that affect the rights of every American should not have the privilege of secrecy.
I agree with the A.C.L.U. that “no senator can meaningfully carry out his or her constitutional obligation to provide ‘advice and consent’ on this nomination to a lifetime position as a federal appellate judge without being able to read Mr. Barron’s most important and consequential legal writing.” The A.C.L.U. cites the fact that in modern history, a presidential order to kill an American citizen away from a battlefield is unprecedented.
The Bill of Rights is clear. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” as well as the right to be informed of all charges and have access to legal counsel. These are fundamental rights that cannot be waived with a presidential pen.
In battle, combatants engaged in war against America get no due process and may lawfully be killed. But citizens not in a battlefield, however despicable, are guaranteed a trial by our Constitution.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was subject to a kill order from Mr. Obama, and was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a missile fired from a drone. I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment. Under our Constitution, he should have been tried — in absentia, if necessary — and allowed a legal defense. If he had been convicted and sentenced to death, then the execution of that sentence, whether by drone or by injection, would not have been an issue.
 
But this new legal standard does not apply merely to a despicable human being who wanted to harm the United States. The Obama administration has established a legal justification that applies to every American citizen, whether in Yemen, Germany or Canada.
Defending the rights of all American citizens to a trial by jury is a core value of our Constitution. Those who would make exceptions for killing accused American citizens without trial should give thought to the times in our history when either prejudice or fear allowed us to forget due process. During World War I, our nation convicted and imprisoned Americans who voiced opposition to the war. During World War II, the government interned Japanese-Americans.
The rule of law exists to protect those who are minorities by virtue of their skin color or their beliefs. That is why I am fighting this nomination. And I will do so until Mr. Barron frankly discusses his opinions on executing Americans without trial, and until the American people are able to participate in one of the most consequential debates in our history.


Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html?_r=0

Friday, April 25, 2014

Jesus Christ Was the God of the Old Testament

Jesus Christ Was the God of the Old Testament 

 
Most either haven’t given much thought to or don’t understand the identity of the God who spoke to people in the Old Testament. Yet Jesus Christ clearly revealed the answer.
 
By Erik Jones
 
 
Many consider the God they read about in the Old Testament to be harsh and vindictive.
This view may be based on simply reading some of the well-known stories of the Old Testament. God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and destroyed the earth with a flood. He sent plagues on ancient Egypt and directed Israel to conquer Canaan through war. And He punished Israel and Judah through captivity by foreign nations. Many interpret these as the actions of a stern God of retribution and justice.
On the other hand, many see the New Testament as quite different. It tells about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who taught love toward others, showed mercy, healed multitudes of people, held children in His arms and gave His life as a sacrifice without resistance.
Comparing these examples, many have concluded that the Father was the God of the Old Testament—the God of justice and punishment. Jesus, the Son, was the God revealed in the New Testament—the God of love and mercy. Some even believe Jesus came to stand in the gap between us and the Father—essentially delivering us from His Father’s restrictive law!
But the truth of the Bible is much different.


It couldn’t have been the Father!
 
John revealed a surprising truth in John 1:18: "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him" (emphasis added throughout). Jesus also said, "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form" (John 5:37).

These two scriptures teach us an important fact: The Father has not directly spoken to or been seen by any human being at any time.

But if we look through the Old Testament, we see many occasions when God worked directly with human beings. (Consider, for example, Genesis 2:16-17; 6:13-14; 12:1; 17:1; Exodus 3:4-6; 33:11, 22-23; Numbers 12:6-8; Deuteronomy 4:33; Jeremiah 1:4-10).

We see that a divine being in the Old Testament dealt directly with people; but according to Jesus, this divine being could not have been God the Father.

Jesus said that He came to "reveal" the Father (Matthew 11:27). By claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:36), Jesus contradicted one of the Jew’s most treasured doctrines—that God is composed of strictly one divine being. They did not understand that God is actually a family—composed of the Father and the Son (John 1:18; Romans 1:4; Philippians 2:6-11).

If the One who revealed Himself to the patriarchs and Israel in the Old Testament was not the Father— then who was He?
 
 
Jesus Christ’s preexistence
 
A careful study of the Bible shows clearly that the God who interacted with humans in the Old Testament was the One who became Jesus Christ.

The Bible reveals that before Jesus was born to Mary, He was the One John called "the Word" (John 1:1, 14). This title perfectly describes His function before being born as a human being. "Word" in John 1:1 is a translation of the Greek word Logos, meaning "a word" or "something said" (Strong’s Greek Dictionary). The definition includes both the thought and the spoken word.

The use of Logos to describe Jesus before His human birth gives us insight into His Old Testament identity. The Word was, essentially, the being in the God family who served as the spokesman. He has always been responsible for communicating the will of the Father to human beings—during Old Testament and New Testament times. When God’s voice or revelation was given, it was through the Word—who became Jesus Christ—or an angel. The Father has never spoken directly with human beings.

Jesus Christ made His identity very clear—sometimes even to His physical detriment! In John 8 Jesus said He knew Abraham (verse 56). Since Abraham had lived and died nearly 2,000 years before, this statement offended the Jews Jesus was talking to. They considered it blasphemy that a mere man (as they viewed Him) "not yet fifty years old" had the audacity to claim He had known their patriarch Abraham (verse 57).

But Jesus’ response was even more shocking to them: "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (verse 58).
Yes, Jesus Christ claimed that He predated Abraham. But, in saying this, Jesus also gave a not-so-subtle clue about His identity that wasn’t lost on the angry Jews who surrounded Him. He referred to Himself as "I AM." This was actually a divine title of God! When God had appeared to Moses from the burning bush, God had identified Himself as "I AM WHO I AM" and "I AM" (Exodus 3:14).

By identifying Himself as "I AM," Jesus claimed that He had eternally existed.

Christ identified Himself as the God of Abraham and Moses, and the One who led Israel out of Egypt (which is also affirmed by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).


Christ was Creator
 
Before His birth, Jesus Christ was the God who created all things. The apostle Paul made this fact very clear in his writings.

We read that "God [the Father] … created all things through Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 3:9). Jesus Christ, the Word, created "all things"—the angelic realm, the physical universe and all physical life— for the Father and under His direction.

Colossians 1:16-18 reveals more functions of the Word. He not only created "all things … in heaven and that are on earth," but He also rules over all authorities and powers that exist under the Father. This means that Christ has authority over the entire angelic and human dominions. He existed "before all things" (He is eternal) and "in Him all things consist" (verse 17).

The truth of Jesus being the Creator of all things is also reinforced in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2.
 
 
The implications
 
We have just skimmed the surface of this incredibly important topic. There is much more to understand about the identity of God the Father and Jesus Christ. But the key truth to understand is that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son exist in total harmony (John 10:30). They share the same perfect character of love, truth, mercy and grace.

Though the Father did not speak directly to people, He is mentioned throughout the Old Testament (for example, both Father and Son are evident in verses like Genesis 1:26; 11:7; and Psalm 110:1). The Father has chosen to accomplish His plan for mankind through Jesus, from beginning to end.
 
 
Not only is the character of God (both Father and Son) consistent at all times, God’s expectations for human beings also remain the same. It is vital for us to study and understand both the Old and New Testaments (1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:16). God’s spiritual law—summarized for us in the 10 Commandments—has remained consistent and binding.

God the Father and Jesus Christ are truly "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6)!
 
 
We encourage you to learn much more about the Father and the Son by exploring two important sections of the LifeHopeandTruth.com website: "Who Is God?" and "Who Is Jesus?" Keep reading and discerning. D
The Consistent Characteristics of
 
God From Old to New Testament
 
 
 
 
 

 

New Issue: Discern Mag...Check it Out!

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists”

Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists"

  •   The Alex Jones ChannelAlex Jones Show podcastPrison Planet TVInfowars.com TwitterAlex Jones' FacebookInfowars store

“I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism”


Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 17, 2014
Senator Harry Reid has escalated the war of words over the Cliven Bundy dispute, sensationally labeling the Nevada cattle rancher’s supporters “domestic terrorists” during an event in Las Vegas today.

Image: Harry Reid (YouTube).
During a ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Reid referred to Bundy supporters as “Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”
Reid was referring to the stand off on Saturday in Bunkerville where Bundy supporters, some of whom were armed, forced Bureau of Land Management agents to back down and release around 380 head of cattle belonging to Bundy that had been seized over the course of the previous week.
Reid claimed that Bundy viewed the United States as a “foreign government,” while accusing his supporters of goading violence.
“There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”
Despite Reid’s characterization of Bundy supporters as “domestic terrorists,” the only violence metered out during the dispute was when BLM agents tasered and assaulted Bundy supporters during an incident on April 9.
No matter where you stand on the Bundy issue, Reid’s characterization of American protesters as “domestic terrorists” is chilling and a massive backlash is almost certain to follow.
It also fits the narrative that the federal government has been pushing for years through literature such as the MIAC report, which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists. In 2012, a Homeland Security study was leaked which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Reid attracted controversy earlier this week when he promised that the BLM’s fight with Bundy was “not over”. The Nevada Senator was hit with accusations of cronyism after his former staffer Neil Kornze was confirmed as the new BLM director earlier this month.
Reid is obviously angry after his complicity in the siege against the Bundy family was exposed and became a viral story. Although many news outlets claimed this issue was “debunked,” Reid’s involvement in a solar farm just 35 miles from Bundy’s ranch is documentedArchived files which were deleted from the BLM’s own website confirm that confiscating Bundy’s cattle was necessary in order to clear the way for lucrative solar deals with transnational corporations.
Meanwhile, the BLM has admitted slaughtering two prize bulls belonging to Cliven Bundy during their round up of his cattle. The BLM claims the bulls “posed a safety hazard” but refused to elaborate. Bundy supporters have pointed to photographs which appear to show one of the bulls having suffered a gunshot wound.
Watch the historic stand off between Bundy supporters and BLM feds below.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4&feature=player_embedded

*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 4:07 pm

Interesting Sites to Checkout

Blog Archive