Ventura Decries "Fascist" America After Judge Tosses TSA Case

Originally posted by Electrum

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Electrum
Where does actually "knowing" what is going on leave off and simple brain-washing begin?

A very excellent question.... Does it apply to those people who use blanket terms like "NWO", "TPTB", "9/11 was an inside job" etc?

Its a 2 way road in case you didnt notice.

I don't understand your question.

in my resonse I was taking your comment about "knowing" becoming brain washing and suggested that, using the same standard you set, that people who use the NWO, TPTB argument are just as brainwashed as those they accuse of supporting the Government.

I will point out that its pretty funny for a group of people to denounce a group of people and accuse them of taking away a persons rights, while at the same time you suggest that any person who doesnt agree with your side of the story is somehow brain washed by the government.

At what point would you like to acknowledge your double standard as well as the fact you are doing what you denounce the government of doing - taking away a persons rights to chose and think for themselves??

reply to post by Xcathdra

The US Federal Government cannot pass a law that treats one entity out of many different, whether its a punishment or reward. Federal law would need to be changed to account for the differeing levels of security, which alone creates a massive liability unless Congress changed the manner in which the federal government, specifically the NTSB / FAA operated.

Would all of that still apply if we totally disbanded the TSA in favor of completely private security? And Im not talking about one private security agency for the entire airport, Im talking about each airline has their own security screening element for each airline. Or maybe have the TSA as a general security agency for the airport itself but relegate security screening for individual flights to private security.

This way, the Federal Government can set minimum security screening requirements and the airlines would be free to follow the minimum requirements or set policies of more invasive screening if they feel the need. This way, passengers are free to choose the airline whose security screening process they are comfortable with.

Getting rid of security / leaving it in the hands of the companies didnt pan out so well before 9/11, when security was private.

True, one glaring problem with this suggestion is the fact that most of the people that were killed during the 9/11 attacks were on the ground. Meaning people who had absolutely no choice in how invasive or lax airport security was were victimized. This should be a HUGE reason why it is no longer up to the airliner to screen their own passengers based on their own policies. But again, I think in-flight security measures like Air Marshals and hardened cockpit doors, which should make it impossible to take over a flight, would alleviate this problem.

I agree we need change that tries to blanace security and civil rights. In the end, the only conclusion I come to is that the people are going to need to understand that in order to get what they want, they are going to have to place themselves at risk when they fly.

Well, this will also be alleviated somewhat by what I suggested. Instead of an "all or nothing approach," airlines are free to set their own policies (as long as it adheres to the minimum requirements) when it comes to security screening and passengers are free to choose their airlines based on those policies which would be advertised. With this, passengers are free to choose the amount of risk they are willing to take and airlines can capitalize on this.

@ other posters - Again if you take the time to read my posts you would see the claims your making against me are not true. Read and learn and participate.

I understand what you are saying. It is a shame that people want to take what you say and misinterperate it just so they can have someone to argue with. Unfortunately, in some of the threads you participate, there are certain members that use this tactic to try to make you a symbol of whatever they disagree with without actually hearing, downright ignoring or intentionally misinterperating what you are saying. Im sure I am not the only one who is seeing it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Char-Lee
With laws that now say you can be taken and held without charge and no lawyer for as long as the "authorities" deem appropriate...not many people want to mess with saying no now days!

This comment right here highlights what ive been talking about. There is no law that allows an American citizen to be taken and held without charges. There is no law that prevents an American from talking to a lawyer. We know this from 42 USC 1983 in addition to our rights.

What you and some others are doing is taking bits and pieces of the Patriot Act and applying them to domestic law, which is not accurate at all.

Please prove what you say, I disagree with you.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Char-Lee
With laws that now say you can be taken and held without charge and no lawyer for as long as the "authorities" deem appropriate...not many people want to mess with saying no now days!

This comment right here highlights what ive been talking about. There is no law that allows an American citizen to be taken and held without charges. There is no law that prevents an American from talking to a lawyer. We know this from 42 USC 1983 in addition to our rights.

What you and some others are doing is taking bits and pieces of the Patriot Act and applying them to domestic law, which is not accurate at all.

You're always talking about law, and how actions such as those of the TSA fall under it.

Has it ever occured to you that if these things are lawful under American law, then it is American law that is the problem?

Because when I see video of 3 year olds beind fondled by TSA agents, and video of the forced strip search/confinement/charges of resisting arrest by a victim of crime, I think what is going on in the US is morally wrong. If the these actions by government agents/officers, which so obviously violate the liberty of American citizens, is considered lawful, then the problem is clearly in your laws. How has the law been modified to allow these atrocities, which intensified since 9/11? PATRIOT Act was only one factor.

It is the executive that benefits from these actions. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are supposed to be separate for the sake of democracy, but democracy fails when they are no longer distinct functions of government.

edit on 5-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

yes things have been modified since Bush acts were put in place. Does anyone remember Senator Kennedy was stopped from boarding an airliner? He was "inadvertently put on a watch list of terrorist suspects". This is or used to be criminal action stopping an elderly American and holding him with NO CAUSE!
The only cause being control of the people by the unseen Government controlling us all!

www.nytimes.com...

Former "Navy SEAL" - (no actual combat mission deployment - ever!)

Obviously delusional and suffering from severe paranoia and genetic damage. Although he never actually renounced his American citizenship in this recent spray of effluvia - one can dream. Fortunately, his antics help many, many more people discover how mentally ill he and his supporters actually are - so his continued display of "intelligence" and drooling into the lens of a camera are really valuable.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
Would all of that still apply if we totally disbanded the TSA in favor of completely private security? And Im not talking about one private security agency for the...snipped for response room.

Good question - I have no idea. I know we have TSA at security checkpoints. We have either Sheriffs deputies or municipal officers present at Airports, and we have unifomred / non uniformed federal agents present as well.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
This way, the Federal Government can set minimum security screening requirements and the airlines would be free to follow the minimum requirements or set policies of more invasive screening if they feel the need. This way, passengers are free to choose the airline whose security screening process they are comfortable with.

To an extent this has alrady been used and failed. The FAA established guidlines even when security was private long before 9/11 occured.

The biggest Issue I see is the care factor the government places with groups like the ACLU. The government / airlines got slammed for allowing 9/11 to occur and for lax security across the board. When the government responded, the ACLU challenged the moves by arguing civil liberty violations. When it was suggested to move to behavioral profiling the ACLU and other groups, again, attacked the plan.

What I see is everyone wanting the government to do something while at the exact same time telling the government no.

Result - TSA and every person going through security checks screened. If the TSA were to do "random" screening the ACLU followed by 500 thousand other special intrests group would seize on the issue the first time a person who is not white is checked.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
True, one glaring problem with this suggestion is the ...snipped for length

I still found it crazy people opposed arming pilots. For some reason it never entered their thought process that all the pilot / co pilot had to do was nose dive the plane into the ground.

However, I will concede one unknown factor - The Human experience. We can place air marshalls on planes (only a small percentage and usually they are international only / DC Airport) and can arm the cockpit crew, but when it comes down to a pilot / copiloit keeping the cock pit door locked while some terrorist / wingnut is with the crew and passengers making the threat that if he doesnt open the door a passenger will be killed every 5 minutes.

If the pilot acts and complies with the terrorist / wingnut, then the security plan failed.
If the pilot keeps the door locked and gets the plane landed with almost all loss of life in the passenger area, then security mesures failed.

Couple that with the fact that regardless of the pilots choice, they will be skewered by every special interest group there is. Airlines and the Feds will once again be inuundated with law suits.

I have concerns about allowing a business, whose sole purpose of being in operations is to make money, and as such will find areas that arent revenue producers and restrict / limit those areas to maximize profits. Even if the fEds mandated tight security requirements, we can see how private business has ignored those mandates and only get called out when an incident occurs that deals with tht specific failure to comply.

We need something with authority, not glorified security. We need to allow those people to be trained and proefessional, we should allow them to bahvior profile among other thigns. A mix of it all with tight control and required review process that constantly looks at the system in order to refine, define or scrap.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
I understand what you are saying. It is a shame that people want to take what you say and misinterperate it just so they can have someone to argue with. Unfortunately, in some of the threads you participate, there are certain members that use this tactic to try to make you a symbol of whatever they disagree with without actually hearing, downright ignoring or intentionally misinterperating what you are saying. Im sure I am not the only one who is seeing it.

My appologies then. Its an irritation of mine on this site, as you have noticed in your response.

The solution is to not take anything off the table and to keep all options open to see what works, what doesnt, or use of something not popular on a lesser frequency etc etc etc.

The back and forth though wont solve anything. The people going after and making a stand with TSA wont do anything since the Congress and not TSA are responsible for its operation and authority in airports / highways / ports and trains.

People MUST get involved. They MUST understand and research the laws and issues. Only then can we make the argument for change and supply the game plan to support the conclusion.

Respects

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Char-Lee
With laws that now say you can be taken and held without charge and no lawyer for as long as the "authorities" deem appropriate...not many people want to mess with saying no now days!

This comment right here highlights what ive been talking about. There is no law that allows an American citizen to be taken and held without charges. There is no law that prevents an American from talking to a lawyer. We know this from 42 USC 1983 in addition to our rights.

What you and some others are doing is taking bits and pieces of the Patriot Act and applying them to domestic law, which is not accurate at all.

Please prove what you say, I disagree with you.

I already have in a few posts back up dealing with your comment, as well as the Patriot act comment.

The Supreme Court has ruled American citizens cannot be detained indefinately without charges and they cannot be denied access to legal counsel.

The Supreme Court decision came from the Hamdi and Hamden vs. Rumsfeld court cases, which challeneged aprts of the patriot act and the Military comission act of 2006, which was refined in the MCA of 1008 and 2009.

A US Citizen CANNOT be held indefinitely without charges.
A US citizen CANNOT be denied access to legal counsel.

As I suggested prior, do research before making claims that are not true.

As a side note, you made the claim while failing to provide any sources to support the claim. Its incumbent on you to support your claim, not for me to disprove it. However, I did and gave you the sources for the result.

You guys really need to read ALL availabloe information instead of just the parts that fit your argument, which also happen to be out of date or not even applicable to Us Citizens.

have fun

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Commissioned Law Enforcement has to have RS / PC in order to have offical contact. Any law enforcement officer can randomly approch and talk to people - its called voluntary contact, and because its voluntary the person contacted is under no obligation to respond to the officer.

The TSA is not commissioned law enforcement, so the rights people say are being taken away dont apply in the manner they expect it to with TSA check points. Strip searches are another area that people seem to be confusing. The ability to perform a strip search is outside the realm of law enforcement authority unless a very specific exigent circumstance exists, and even then the justification used will be under extreme scrutiny.

What is all this talk of commissioned and non commissioned law enforcement? I have read the Constitution and no where in it does it say anything about such circumstances. In fact it is quite clear. I do not understand how this issue has become so pitifully warped.

My natural rights do not apply because TSA is non-commissioned? That is total crap and it is only through obscure legalisms and dictatorial tactics that they have this illusion of power. You may be content to accept the absolutism of your so called non-commissioned authorities. I am not.

Your argument of consent has a fatal flaw. People who do not consent are not given an opportunity to agree to a search on more agreeable terms. It is an all or nothing offer. That is not how natural rights nor consent are supposed to work. Furthermore, there is either legislation on the books or bills that are trying to be passed as legislation that criminalize or punish those who will not consent. The ability to freely choose to give consent or not is being subverted.

Finally, I read an earlier post of yours regarding the right to travel but not the right to freely choose ones method of travel. I ask you -- How does one travel? That's right..a method of transportation is required for the ability to travel. The natural right of travel means nothing when all premium modes of transportation are dictated to you. The argument that a person can walk is not only absurd but a blatant insult slapped onto the faces of everyone. The same applies to other highly inefficient modes of transportation. Sure...perhaps courts have ruled on these things. That is yet another insult to all people when an individual judge or handful of judges create legalisms for irrevocable rights. The mere concept is, once again, absurd. I won't go into anymore depth about judges and rulings because that would lead me to an off topic rant.

I will close with this: Your education regarding statutory law is relevant and helpful but at what price do we pay for these statutory legalisms that do not clearly fit into one of the three branches of constitutional courts? I say the price is FAR to high.

Originally posted by My_Reality
What is all this talk of commissioned ..snipped for response..

Actually its not. When a person is a commissioned law enforcement officer, they have the abilty to temporarily deprive an individual of some basic rights. Because of that law enforcement, aside from voluntary contact, must have reasonable suspicion to make contact / perform a traffic stop. That same officer must have PC in order to effect an arrest. The actions of the officer towards those in custody are governmed by 42 USC 1983 - Civil rights laws.

Non comissioned (security / TSA) are empowered unter state law (fed for TSA) to detain an individual (will vary from state to state) pending the arrival of Law efnorcement. They are not empowered to actually make an arrest nor are they capable of pressing certain charges against civilians (will vary state to state).

The main point between the 2 revolves around the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment applies to the government and its agents and not the individual. Non comissioned law enforcement (TSA / Security) can make contact with a person and request that person submit to a search of their belongings. If the person refuses then the person can be told to leave property and not come back. If they refuse to leave they can be detained for tresspassing until the police show up.

Commissioned law enforcement requires R/S to make contact. They can request to search an item and if the perosn refuses there is nothing the officer can do. Unles they have a memo of understanding they cant even detain the person for tresspassing or order them to leave (private property).

There are significant differences in how commissioned / non comissioned officers can act and what they are allowed to do.

Originally posted by My_Reality
My natural rights do not apply because TSA is non-commissioned? That is total crap and it is only through obscure legalisms and dictatorial tactics that they have this illusion of power. You may be content to accept the absolutism of your so called non-commissioned authorities. I am not.

I not going to argue tit for tat on the natural rights argument. Take this for what its worth. If you want to be treated in a certain manner, you should extend the courtesy. Simply declaring that you dont agree with something doesnt make it legal or illegal. If you took the time to read what im saying instead of the 100 meter rush to judgment you would see it has nothng to do about being content. I am telling people to educate themsevels on their rights, where to find them, how they apply etc.

Absent doing that, the argument we will continue to see is tnatureal rights while rejecting all other laws / rulings etc that people dont agree with.

Originally posted by My_Reality
Your argument of consent has a fatal flaw. People who do not consent are not given an opportunity to agree to a search on more agreeable terms.

Well for starters is not a flaw at all. A person has a choice on whther or not they want to fly. Those people who choose to fly know before they even get to the airport. Once at the airport they are free to change their minds and leave. The constitution guarantees freedom of movement within a state as well as across state lines. The method of travel is not guaranteed. When it beomces an issue is when a person is seized under the 4th, which travelers are not, and the person is not given a choice, which travelers are.

Originally posted by My_Reality
Finally, I read an earlier post of yours regarding the right to travel but not the right to freely choose ones method of travel. I ask you -- How does one travel? ...snipped for room

How is the method of travel anyones issue but the person wanting to get from point A to point B? As stated, travel is guaranteed, the method of transportation is not. Its seems to be self defeating to invoke the Constitution rgument about what it specifically states, only to flip back to the other side of the pendulum by suggesting the method of movement is guaranteed, when its not.

Originally posted by My_Reality
I will close with this: Your education regarding statutory law is relevant and helpful but at what price do we pay for these statutory legalisms that do not clearly fit into one of the three branches of constitutional courts? I say the price is FAR to high.

A valid question that would result in a topic all of its on and pull this thread off topic. However we can engage in that debate if you want to. Or we can just shoot each other info through U2U to discuss and compare.

To conclude, I will state what I have in the past. People must be familiar wiht their rights, how they work and when they apply. They must klnow about the government, all levels and branches, and how it works. only then can we as a society make an argument for change by using the very system the government has used against us.
Rspects

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Electrum
Where does actually "knowing" what is going on leave off and simple brain-washing begin?

A very excellent question.... Does it apply to those people who use blanket terms like "NWO", "TPTB", "9/11 was an inside job" etc?

Its a 2 way road in case you didnt notice.

"The powers that be" refer simply to the powers that be. In your world, you seem to be only able to accept the textbook establishment point of view of who SHOULD have power as being the reality. But it's not. In fact, neo-conservatives were organizing a new plan for the US in the 1990s and Bush was their pawn to carry it all out. It's all documented.

"New World Order" is also a very real thing. Humans have surpassed the exploratory phase of acquiring territory on Earth's surface, so now the powerful in the West are seeking to dominate the whole world through economic subversion (it's called CLASS WAR). It's not fantasy.

"9/11 was an inside job". Well, the media presentation was pretty good, until you actually look at the undeniable incidents involved that completely turn the official story upside down. WTC7 is a good example. We're told thousands of times that planes took down two trade towers, but it was some debris that took out another trade tower blocks away on the same day? What a crock of sh*t. It's things like this that expose the bigger plan and the commitment to it by the powers that be for the sake of their new world order.

I can understand that you live in the US, so you're constantly bombarded with the establishment's point of view. However, the truth is much easier to see from outside of that veil of ignorance emplaced on you. I have read many established books by establishment authors, and they all write about stuff that when all put together expose an underlying reality.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
"The powers that be" refer simply to...snipped for response.

Actually in my world, when a person comes up to me and states a crime just occured and they are the victim of that crime. I ask question to determine whats going on. One of those questions is going to be who did this to you. If I get a reponse along the lines of " The Powers that be" or " The New World order" I am forced toask follow up questions to determine specifically who is behind it.

When they can only give me a vague mysterious group they want to use as a blame all / catch all, it creates a very real problem. I cant submit a PC statement requesting an arrest warrant for "TPTB" or the "NWO". Our laws are funny that way, you know, requireing specifics so as to avoid abuse of the system or malicious invesitgations / prosecutions based on rumor and innuendo instead of verifiable facts.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
"New World Order" is also a very real thing. Humans have surpassed the exploratory phase of acquiring territory on Earth's surface, so now the powerful in the West are seeking to dominate the whole world through economic subversion (it's called CLASS WAR). It's not fantasy.

So people keep stating, yet when I ask who they are, no one really seems to know. Those who think they do give the generic list of the Rothschilds, Tutors etc etc etc, which again is all fine and dandy, but they offer absolutely no direct proof, other than... wait for it.... vague blanket statements / comments with the expectation that the people theyare telling this to should take them at face value and do no investigations at all.

That, by the way, is also problematic.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
"9/11 was an inside job". Well, the media ...

First off it was not an inside job. There is no way shape or form something of that magnitude could A - Be kept a secret. Our government leaks like a bucket with .45 holes all over it. Secondly the sheer number of witnesses arent all in the governments pocket. The BS about building 7, if people did research, use truncated quotes that place them out of context. They also ignbore any and all video evidence except for the straigth on shot showing the building coming down. Forget the other video that shows the partial collapse prior to it coming down or all the damage sustained when debris from the WTC slammed into the building.

Facts are important... ALL of them. If for no other reason thaty it would pull some people who cant think for themsleves from coming into forums and chat sites and repeating what they have been told solely because they dont know, dont understand, or hate the government so much they want to beleive, regardlkess if its real.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I can understand that you live in the US, so you're constantly bombarded with the establishment's point of view. However, the truth is much easier to see from outside of that veil of ignorance emplaced on you. I have read many established books by establishment authors, and they all write about stuff that when all put together expose an underlying reality.

edit on 6-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Actually im not bombarded by establishment news. However, again thank you for proving my point that if it something you dont agree with, you attack the source in an effort to cast suspicion and doubt for the others to jump on. Whats even better is you show absolutely no support for your claims, like the one you just made against me and establishment point of view or how "ignorant" I am when it comes to seeing whats real and whats not.

You have engaged me in a few conversations now, and if you go back and look, along with the others, you will clearely see that when I counter one of your claims and provide the source info, you ignore that topic and push something else, with absolutely nothing to support your claims.

You are incapable of dealing with the truth in a head on manner. If it doesnt support your agenda, you dimiss and quickly try to change the focus to some other obscure claim while playing a round robbing game of point counter point and show me the car facts.

The problem is sir, you dont do either. You have not once, NOT ONCE, supported your claims with verifable sources. Case in point, your attempts in this thread to engage particular issues have been such a failure, that you have now moved beyond the origional conversation you started with your claims. Now we are onto the governmetn and false flag 9-11 attacks and WTC 7 conspiracies.

How does any of what you brought up fit into the TSA topic?

Here is your chance... Prove me wrong and cite your sources please.

Respects

Actually in my world, when a person comes up to me and states a crime just occured and they are the victim of that crime. I ask question to determine whats going on. One of those questions is going to be who did this to you. If I get a reponse along the lines of " The Powers that be" or " The New World order" I am forced toask follow up questions to determine specifically who is behind it.

As would I, since I would not take seriously any claim by a person coming up to me saying a crime was committed against them by TPTB or the NWO

When they can only give me a vague mysterious group they want to use as a blame all / catch all, it creates a very real problem.

That's the whole point of the term TPTB. It's not meant to be specific since the players are always changing or were never obvious in the first place. It doesn't mean that players cannot be identified or plans revealed, because in fact they are (Project for the New American Century).

So people keep stating, yet when I ask who they are, no one really seems to know. Those who think they do give the generic list of the Rothschilds, Tutors etc etc etc,

No, you're not talking about the NWO; you're talking about the Illuminati, which I personally could not care less about. New World Order means a new path for the whole world and various global factions are trying to carry out there own aspirations for it to ensure their dominance; most prevelant being the US with other countries following instead of being ran over.

First off it was not an inside job. There is no way shape or form something of that magnitude could A - Be kept a secret.

Or so you think.

The BS about building 7, if people did research, use truncated quotes that place them out of context. They also ignbore any and all video evidence except for the straigth on shot showing the building coming down. Forget the other video that shows the partial collapse prior to it coming down or all the damage sustained when debris from the WTC slammed into the building.

Excuse me? I'm not retarded. You cannot seriously expect me to believe that a building blocks away from the attacked towers was damaged so much from debris that this whole building itself can suddenly explode from the inside and collapse. You can make up whatever claims you want, but the video evidence clearly shows it being detonated from the inside with three sections of it separating and collapsing simultaniously right into itself (and contrary to your explanation, the "official" explanation is that gas tanks exploded in WTC7 from fires which brought the building down ).

Nevermind the fact that there wasn't even a direct route for debris from the attacked towers to hit WTC7 without causing the same effect on many other buildings in the process (pretty convenient considering what was actually in the WTC7 building).

And the other obvious blunder of 9/11, which was reported by various news agencies, was the "Dancing Arabs" story which was pretty damning in and of itself. Those guys were recognized as Mossad from the US government itself and released back to Israel after their arrest on 9/11.

Whats even better is you show absolutely no support for your claims, like the one you just made against me and establishment point of view or how "ignorant" I am when it comes to seeing whats real and whats not.

I already explained to you before: I'm not going to pump my posts full of citations and sources. It's not worth my time to prove to others unwilling to learn what I already know.

You are incapable of dealing with the truth in a head on manner.

Personally, I think this applies to you more than me. Like I said before, I look at what is supposed to be, and what actually is- this is how I determine, for myself, what the BS is. I'm not some messiah that's going after others to believe everything that I say and to follow me, so I'm only interesting in saying my views and if people really want to learn for themselves, then they can follow up on what I say.

The problem is sir, you dont do either. You have not once, NOT ONCE, supported your claims with verifable sources.

This is a lie. I've posted information straight out of numerous established books and even cited them. It isn't my fault if books are less convenient sources than instantly looking up some information on the internet (which isn't all that reliable compared to books, in my opinion).

Case in point, your attempts in this thread to engage particular issues have been such a failure, that you have now moved beyond the origional conversation you started with your claims
...
How does any of what you brought up fit into the TSA topic?

What does the 9/11 fabrication have to do with TSA molestation at American airports? Must I really answer that?

I went to an air show yesterday at the local base and they didn't even do much searching besides going through a metal detector... The funny thing is I made a comment to my buddy when he said something about all the uniform military walking around and how they looked like the kids from the bus stop by our house.

"Take a good look at our future... kids running around with guns... This is a good look at what martial law will look like... MPs ushering you around everywhere..."

The TSA is just trying to get us adapted to what changes are going to be implemented... Conditioned if you will...

These days true freedom is nothing but a dream we pray or wish for... Our president is nothing more than an illusionist who doubles as a puppet...

reply to post by Xcathdra

First off it was not an inside job. There is no way shape or form something of that magnitude could A - Be kept a secret. Our government leaks like a bucket with .45 holes all over it. Secondly the sheer number of witnesses arent all in the governments pocket. The BS about building 7, if people did research, use truncated quotes that place them out of context.

Yes the govt has not been able to hide its involvement.Building 7 proved it.The cooperation with Al Qaeda in Libya,Syria,
My cousin who is a marine is pissed with the NATO and american military cooperation with al qaeda and islamic terrorists in Libya and the others in his unit are pissed too. He's stated that will not obey the kenyan impostor's orders anymore.A rebellion is seething the ranks for regime change and restoration of the constitution.