by Jerry Robinson
T he Gestapo-like tactics that were implemented in Boston last week by the military-style police forces are just a small sign of things to come in America… including a large spike in military-style drones flying over — and spying on — American cities as well as a new influx of high definition security cameras in major U.S. cities.
As we expected, the power hungry elites in Washington are using the Boston bombings to force a false choice on the American “sheeple”.
And they are using the corporate-controlled media to spread their delusional attempts at a massive power grab.
The talking heads on TV will put forth reasoning that will sound something like this…
1) Armed policemen enacting martial law in your city, imposing curfews, and conducting door-to-door searches while holding your family at gunpoint?
2) Heat-seeking military drones flying over your city peering into your homes in a search for the “terrorist” in order to “keep you safe?”
Apparently these are the only two options that Washington is prepared to consider.
This choice is entirely fabricated. Americans can say “no” to both choices. Unfortunately, with the recent passage of the unpatriotic Patriot Act and the outrageous National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, American citizens can now be detained indefinitely strictly based on suspicion. No evidence is needed and the decision cannot be questioned by the American public.
Below is an intense video of police performing house-to-house raids in Watertown, MA, a suburb of Boston. Watch how they rough up the innocent families and kick them out of their own homes.
And here’s another video showing the house-to-house raids.
After being subjected to martial law, mobs of Bostonians rushed into the streets holding American flags while chanting “U.S.A, U.S.A.” It was appalling to witness the birthplace of early revolt applaud the military-industrial complex rolling through its streets armed to the teeth. Bostonians have just had their most basic rights infringed upon. It is no jubilant matter. Any American who considers this type of police behavior commendable or even acceptable should be ashamed to call themselves a patriot.
You can watch the brainwashed, but jubilant, Bostonians in the video below…
In the video below, random people are stopped on the street and are asked to sign a petition to repeal the 6th and 7th Amendments. (These two Amendments guarantee American citizens the right to a speedy and public trial by jury.) As you will see in the video, most people signed the petition without asking any questions. The interviewer should go to Boston. He would likely have great success there.
It seems the corporate-controlled mainstream media has done a very effective job of pulling the wool over the eyes of most Americans.
Let’s consider America’s founding fathers, who warned of this type of government overreach centuries ago. Today, the founding fathers are lauded and practically deified for their open rebellion against the British empire. They warned against central banks and standing armies. They were intimately aware of the slippery slope that is created by giving too much power and authority to a centralized federal government.
Today, America has morphed into a quasi-police state, and its wealth has been gutted by the international banksters that run the central banking cartel, which includes the Federal Reserve.
The government shakedown of Boston is a sign of things to come.
In his farewell speech, highly decorated General and former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the threat posed by the creeping influence of something he referred to as the “Military-Industrial Complex.” Today, that complex also includes the corporate-controlled mainstream media. 95% of the media consumed by the American people every day is framed, produced, and edited by U.S. corporations. As profit-seeking entities, these massive media conglomerates are not benevolent institutions committed to keeping you informed and safe. Instead, their reports are designed to drive more value for shareholders. If you trust the mainstream media, it is time you woke up to this reality. And if you are just waking up, don’t feel too bad. I was totally unaware of these facts until I began doing my own investigation in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It took me three years to fully grasp what was happening to our country.
Consider these treasonous words from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina):
“The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not.”
It is common knowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has been preparing for combat through the purchase of instruments of war. These include: Approximately 1.6 billion hollow-point bullets, 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons, 2,700 MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, and an increasing number of military-style unmanned aerial drones.
Make no mistake. These are weapons of war. So, who is DHS planning on waging a war against?
Of course, the derelict corporate-owned media has very little investigative journalism into this matter. Instead, they have simply regurgitated the government’s official answer that the ammunition will be used strictly for training and target practice. But this is clearly false, as hollow point bullets are not typically used for target practice. They are also brutal enough to be banned for use in war, according to international law.
The Drone Debate Intensifies in Washington
A contentious debate has been brewing in the nation’s capital over the legality of using unmanned aerial drones to target American citizens on U.S. soil since a drone strike killed U.S. citizen (suspected Al-Qaeda operative) Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.
But in the wake of the Boston bombing, and the ensuing manhunt that led to martial law (known more affectionately as a “lockdown”) in that city, lawmakers have started to change their tune on the domestic use of drone technology.
One of the more shocking shifts has been the changing stance in Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). Just one month ago, Sen. Paul made news by staging a 13 hour filibuster of the confirmation of CIA director John Brennan. What was the reason? Paul feared the U.S. was inching ever more closely to a police state in which U.S. citizens could be targeted by drones on U.S. soil.
But just yesterday, during an interview on the Fox Business Network, Paul seemed to change his tune:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on.. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
You can watch the interview below. (Paul’s interesting comment comes at the :40 second mark.)
Earlier this week, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) repeated this same theme, stating that if a U.S. citizen is suspected of having terrorist ties, he should only be targeted if he poses an “imminent threat.”
But this begs the question: How is an “imminent threat” defined, and who determines its definition?
Apparently, this decision is left to the highest levels of law enforcement within America’s corrupt Federal government.
Security cameras on every corner
And it’s not only drones that are being pushed to the forefront of the national debate. In the aftermath of the April 15 bombing of the Boston Marathon that killed three Americans, the push for more security cameras in major U.S. cities is also growing.
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly is one of the major proponents of more security cameras in U.S. cities. Kelly is in charge of the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which has 4,000 security cameras positioned within New York City. (NYC’s strong security apparatus has drawn comparisons to London’s similar surveillance efforts, known as the Ring of Steel.) However, Kelly apparently believes that 4,000 cameras spying on the public is not enough.
In an interview with the New York Post, Kelly stated:
“I’d like to see that (4,000 cameras) increase significantly and to other boroughs.”
“Are we vulnerable here to something similar to what happened in Boston? Absolutely.’’