The King David Show

KDNews


Leave a comment

US Military and Local Police Working Together on American Streets


Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

The US military is being usedto protect civilian events, like the 2012 Democratic and Republican Party National Conventions in Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, North Carolina.

USNORTHCOM and Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, has readily admitted that US armed forces will collaborate with local law enforcement “if called upon”.

In fact, more than 20,000 troops were brought home and readied for deployment within the US to assist in “civil unrest and crowd control”.

The US military will prop up the US Secret Service “for operational security reasons we do not discuss the numbers of military personnel and resources that are involved. Additionally, we do not share our operational plans,” said U.S. Navy Lt. Cdr. William G. Lewis.

The extent of use of military forces on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to “assist local authorities” in investigation, crime scene and case building.

An estimate 500 military police and dogs will be used as “law enforcement battalions”. These soldiers, having served on tours in Afghanistan, will now be activated and based out of military bases across America to help local police forces.

National Guard has been witnessed in Virginia conducting “wellness checks” and patrolling residential neighborhoods as well as downtown city areas.

In Southern California, the TSA have been caught patrolling train stations and bus terminals.

The US Congress has given over $25 million in more funding to support unannounced TSA checkpoints.

According to one whistleblower : “We’re doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we’re even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we’re inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we’ve fully expanded – we’re no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint.”

Military soldiers and TSA checkpoints are not the only tricks up the US government’s sleeve.

Researchers at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, led by Roland Brockers, have developed micro-aerial vehicles (MAVs) that utilize a camera pointed at the ground to navigate, choose landing destinations and identify people and targets.

Operators have only to command the MAVs to a location, beginning with the starting point, and the specialized GPS system will guide the micro-drone through mapped out sites, dimensions and landscapes.

Other military defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and LaserMotive have combined to preform drone testing with the use of wireless energy technology.

While the US government is facilitating the military on American streets and the TSA are beefing up their range with new checkpoints and areas of patrol, the national debate over gun control continues.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) are bringing attention to the anti-gun purveyors like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who are calling for immediate restriction of gun sales to average Americans.

Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston and member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, commented: “The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Aurora is to make it harder for this to ever happen again. Our political leaders need to lead – and we demand they act now.”
NRA members are reporting, according to a new survey, that they are not only purchasing more guns because of recent events like the Batman shooting, but recognize that their purchases may put them on a terrorist watch list.

John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, acknowledges that gun control is a heated topic “in the wake of this horrible shooting” but that “more gun control could actually make situations worse by making it harder for law-abiding folks to own and carry guns, which means for lunatics that there are more unarmed, potential victims.”

Velleco admits that as of now, legislation is lacking in the gun control debate, however he recognizes that these anti-gun advocates are “kind of like vultures to take advantage of a situation to further an agenda that doesn’t get traction and that people don’t support.”

The NRA has political pull in swing states, which is being suggested by the MSM as a deterrent from Obama to support stricter gun laws; however Obama and Clinton have both publicly stated their support of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) being discussed by the UN in conference in New York until July 27th.

Susanne Posel’s post first appeared on her blog, Occupy Corporatism.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Chicago Alderman Moves to Ban Business for Politically Incorrect View on Gays


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

photoChick-fil-A President Dan Cathy.

In Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago, the Alderman controlling Logan Square wants to block Chick-fil-A from opening a store because its CEO opposes gay marriage.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said last week he believes in the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about,” Cathy said.

“Same sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we’re open to,” said Moreno. “We want responsible businesses.”

In other words, business that does not tote the political agenda of government – and theUnited Nations – will not be allowed to operate. Like the former Soviet Union, Chicago will only permit business (called “enterprises” in the Soviet Union) to exist if it follows the political dictates of government.

If an alderman (essentially a Mafia don) disagrees with the personal opinion espoused by a business owner, he will be run out of town after a self-righteous tongue lashing.

“If he’s in the business of selling chicken in Chicago, he should be in the business of having equal rights for everyone. Period,” Moreno told the Sun-Times. “If it looks like a chicken, talks like a chicken, walks like a chicken, it’s a chicken. If you’re saying you don’t respect the values and rights of same-sex couples, that trickles down through the organization. … That’s paramount to the way the company behaves.”

Chick-fil-A had received zoning approval for the restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston on Chicago’s westside. The company still needs City Council approval. This may not be forthcoming thanks to Moreno and Chicago mayor Emanuel.

Chicago’s godfather agrees with the alderman. “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of Young Turks say Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy “hates” gays:


Leave a comment

Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, It’s About Tyranny


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012

Now that Obama has tested the water on government gun control with a speech delivered before the National Urban League, we can expect the divisive issue to play a role in his re-election campaign.

Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.

AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.

Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.

Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.

Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?

Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.


Leave a comment

Killer Drones Coming to A Sky Near You: Rosalind Peterson Reports


Infowars.com
June 15, 2012

Darrin McBreen talks to Rosalind Peterson of California Sky Watch about the deadly consequences of the government using military unmanned drones here in America.


Leave a comment

Obama Plans Attack On First Amendment if Re-elected


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 15, 2012

Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axerlrod, announced earlier this week that the administration will push for a constitutional amendment to rollback free speech if his boss is re-elected in November.

“When we win, we will use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment, to turn this back,” Axlerod said on Wednesday. “I understand the free speech argument, but when the Koch brothers can spend $400 million, more than the McCain campaign and the Republican Party spent last time, that’s very concerning.”

http://r.unicornmedia.com/content.aspx?uid=AC26FE85-334B-4A21-B72C-154F743F5739&at=7b3c6199-eae4-4027-bdcf-136a2c01c5c6

“This has never been done before — in 235 years — to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country — a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it,” remarked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday.

“America was built on free speech — the most important part of the Bill of Rights — and so we need to defend speech we don’t like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut us up,” he said.

McConnell accused the Obama administration of using the the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to muzzle its critics. He added that the tactic is reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list in the 1970s. White House Counsel John Dean said Nixon wanted to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

In April, Rory Cooper wrote about Obama’s “Truth Team“ campaign website. He noted “subtle differences between Obama’s and Nixon’s enemy lists. President Nixon kept his secret, and allegedly used the force of the government to punish adversaries. President Obama’s list is open and designed to elicit public scorn, shame and rebuke. There is no current evidence the President has manipulated the federal machinery punitively. But the message remains clear, if you support a philosophical adversary, you will face some retribution.”

Cooper penned his commentary following remarks made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and House Democrats have proposed a three tiered plan to ram through Congress what is known as the DISCLOSE Act. It would restrict the political speech of “covered organizations,” including most television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and think tanks.

Axlerod’s remarks about the First Amendment reveal that the so-called Team Obama approach to silencing the political opposition is not particularly effective. It also reveals a brazen contempt for the Bill of Rights.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the court said the First Amendment applies to all entities, including corporations:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. … This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. … Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

Obama and Axlerod may disagree with the concept of “corporate personhood” (except, of course, when it comes to the banks and corporations that support Obama), but the issue has far larger implications than simply preventing the dreaded Koch brothers from spending a small portion of their billions for the purpose of political speech.

If Obama manages to amend the Constitution – a remote possibility at best (but then considering the way the Supreme Court is currently construed, maybe not) – restrictions on free speech will undoubtedly be used against opponents outside the political establishment.

Axlerod’s comments underscore a deep-seated hostility toward the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as McConnell noted (not that Republicans are exactly champions of liberty).

Obama and the Democrats apparently hate that the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as inherent in our humanity. Axlerod’s comments reveal Obama – who we are told is a constitutional scholar – does not agree.


Leave a comment

“Anti-Democratic” World Government Advocate Attends Bilderberg


FT writer Rachman outlined plan for global UN dictatorship

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, June 4, 2012

Financial Times writer Gideon Rachman was in attendance at this year’s 2012 Bilderberg Group conference, no doubt to further the agenda he advanced in a December 2008 FT article in which he argued that “everything is in place” for a dictatorial world government to be imposed by a technocratic elite.

Rachman was spotted entering the conference in Chantilly Virginia by London Guardian journalist Charlie Skelton.

In his 2008 article And now for a world government, Rachman admitted that the elite’s plan for a global government was inherently undemocratic in nature.

“International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” he wrote, citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” added Rachman.

Rachman’s world government would function like the European Union. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force,” he wrote.

In addition, the authoritarian global government would impose “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force,” according to Rachman.

Rachman also notes that such an agenda would have to be established through euphemistic language to avoid “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.

The FT writer explained how the imposition of world government was now “plausible” because it could be more easily justified by the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror.”

  • A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Rachman’s 2008 call for authoritarian technocrats to be put in charge of the global economy in preparation for the official birth of global government is now well on its way to completion, with the economies of France, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece, along with the IMF and the European Central Bank, all under Goldman Sachs banker occupation.

I have challenged Rachman to a debate on his view that “everything is in place” for an authoritarian world government to be imposed by his Bilderberg chums. Read the email below.

Gideon,

I’m guessing your war criminal friend Henry Kissinger was receptive to the ideas outlined in your “and now for a world government” piece?

Oh I’m sorry, I forgot that over 100 of the world’s power brokers jet half way across the world for three days just for a nice dinner and a game of golf.

So when’s your report on Bilderberg 2012 going to appear in the FT?

I know I know, Wolfie (Martin Wolf – FT editor and Bilderberg member) would never allow such heresy.

Were you one of the snobs labeling us all cockroaches?

Come on, Gideon, there’s still time for you to turn away from the dark side.

I challenge you to a debate on the Alex Jones Show – do you have the balls?

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

 

Tags: 

Share this article:

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • digg
  • reddit
  • email

 

Sponsored Link: How much do you REALLY need to retire? A former eye surgeon says you can actually retire on just $10,000. See his radical plan in full detail, here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Leave a comment

Florida Man arrested for Spitting on Sidewalk


Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
June 5, 2012

While this may sound like a story out of Nazi Germany, it actually took place in Lakeland, Florida.

Joseph Stoiber was walking in his neighborhood at 2:30am talking to a friend on his cell phone when a Lakeland police officer pulled up and began questioning him.

The officer asked Stoiber to submit to a search, at which point he refused: “And then he said, ‘Can I pat you down?” At that point I said, ‘No, [you] may not.’”

After the refusal the two argued the legality (or illegality) of the patdown.

According to the news report, next, “things got heated,” (which is another way of saying the officer got heated), and Stoiber was placed in handcuffs.

As those that have experienced similar run-ins with the law can attest, it is this sheer act of defiance and denial of search that gets police worked up. After being refused, most look for any reason to feed their power trip egos and haul you off to jail.

 

While Stoiber had done nothing wrong (but refuse a patdown), he had been chewing snuff tobacco and decided to spit.

At this point, the officer was likely relieved that his detainment would be justified. He placed Stoiber under arrest for the non-violent crime of spitting on a sidewalk.

The law under which police took Stoiber into custody was Ordinance 70-8, a Lakeland law stating “that it shall be unlawful for any person to spit, expectorate or deposit any sputum, saliva or mucous upon any sidewalk.”

The officer argued that he requested a search because he noticed a bulge in Stoiber’s pants and asked what he was doing in the area, but that Stoiber’s explanation didn’t sound reasonable.

In the news report, the USF college student is heard explaining that he’s an insomniac and likes staying up later.

Unfortunately, unlawful searches in the “land of the free” are a growing trend. Cops believe they have the authority to strip us of our Fourth Amendment rights whenever they feel so inclined. This, however, is a vicious violation of our Fourth Amendment. Kurt Nimmo writes:

“Probable cause under the Fourth Amendment is in effect when a person is detained or arrested and is not free to leave. Police can only detain a person when facts are sufficient to warrant an arrest or seizure of an individual.

In Gerstein v. Pugh, the court found that judicial determination of probable cause is required following an arrest. Evidence of crime and that an individual was involved in a crime is required.

A person arrested without probable cause may sue the government and the police. [emphasis added]

So what’s it going to be America?

Are you going to allow imposed curfews by roving patrols questioning anyone walking about? Will you continue to submit to unlawful searches?

Or, will you let the cops know that we know our rights and are ready to defend them?

We encourage readers to let Lakeland PD know how we feel about unlawful searches and unjust arrests. Here’s their contact page.