D
dramamine
Agreed completely regarding all the so-called revolutions..arab spring, etc. Just creating more banana republics....funneling resources and money.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
U.S. Government spying on entire U.S., to nobody's surprise
- Thread starter frito bandito
- Start date
- Status
^ this may surprise you jericho mile, but i totally agree with you.
the spartans enslaved the helots. the spartans were the 1%. they systematically killed any helot that showed "caliber". they subjugated the survivors. after time passed, the helots were one sorry ass bunch. it would be difficult to generate much respect, sympathy, compassion for this "slave race" unless one took into account what systematic subjugation had done to them over time.
the same is true today for almost all of humanity. the indigeneous tribes that have survived today have a very strong connection to "source". the annunaki bred anglo bloodlines ( the real zionists) have tried to wipe them totally off the planet as their tie to source makes them un-enslaveable.
muddy waters was a great poster here at ic mag and his signature was ""I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." -Winston Churchill
maybe the 99% wouldn't be the way they are if they hadn't been systematically subjugated over thousands of years. religion, genocide, fluoride, money "green slavery", alcohol, academic propaganda, rewriting of history, enslavement(physical), heroin, meth, crack, gmo food ; you name it, they have attacked us with it.
i'd like to see the poor slobs (including me
) get a chance to assert our freedom and empowerment.I just figure...being a simple man:
The further I can get away from processed living (consumerism) the healthier I will be. The healthier I am...the happier I shall be.
There is nothing healthy or positive about governments or their politics. They reveal nothing good in the human condition.
All this stuff people post in this thread...all these revelations are being called educational by those who post them...the passing of information...opening eyes....but it is no different than watching the news...just another form of indoctrination into agendas. I mean..what's it supposed to inspire people to do? Vote? Start a war?
Voting is bought...wars are bought....so where does that leave us? Chatting up airways...procrastinating away
The further I can get away from processed living (consumerism) the healthier I will be. The healthier I am...the happier I shall be.
There is nothing healthy or positive about governments or their politics. They reveal nothing good in the human condition.
All this stuff people post in this thread...all these revelations are being called educational by those who post them...the passing of information...opening eyes....but it is no different than watching the news...just another form of indoctrination into agendas. I mean..what's it supposed to inspire people to do? Vote? Start a war?
Voting is bought...wars are bought....so where does that leave us? Chatting up airways...procrastinating away
that view is way too pessimistic for me, yes the deck is stacked, yes real change for the better has not been achieved all that much in our history. but if everyone had thought like you, we wouldn't have made any progress at all. we'd still be serfs, woman would have no vote or rights, black people would still be catch-able to sell as slaves etc etc etc. every bit of progress thats been made has been made by people doing something in spite of the odds. if the vote is crooked then thats the first step help to watch the ballot boxes at local elections, start campaigns to get rid of the electronic voting systems and go back to witnessed public counting etc. the bad guys use tricks and the good guys learn from those tricks and try and stand up against them. it's not about winning or losing it's about doing something what ever that may be. if you think it's all hopeless you have already accepted defeat and in the end they are only as powerful as the public believes them to be. we have all seen how quick the famous can be destroyed when the public wind changes direction.
I'm far from pessimistic dude. I'm even keeled...and objective in my observations. Have no problem calling bullshit...in lieu of being emotionally involved...and pretending that we are making progress.
I observe...that the majority of the world's population has been born into economic derived slavery. That this system of slavery is almost perfect in its application...as the slaves..are not made to feel like..slaves. It's not a new system...and it's cheaper than shackles and chains.
In America...you have a better groomed population of slaves...but we are just as controlled as anyone else. Now...they feed us synthetic non foods...synthetic drugs..synthetic illusion....perpetuating the addictions that industry is creating. The population is kept sick and dependent...taxed from birth to death...industry profiting off the sicknesses...it creates. It's agriculture...the perfect circle...empires built by slave backs...the farming of populations
Having the right to vote...is a kick in the balls. Yup...you have the right...one party or the other....both bought and sold...by the same people..making us sick. But voting is a freedom..
I get up every morning...and thank the stars...I'm able to have my day...under the sun. I want nothing...expect nothing...from my overseers
briefly you guys/gals will see the meat and potato's of our legal system.everyone see's clearly the injustices ,because they are universal ones, but so is the remedy,because we were all born with inalienable rights they are not dished out by people for money those are privilages that can be revoked (rights v privilages). they can divide and conquer but that's only taking advantage of our ignorance of the law. they make it difficult to understand for the public for a reason but it's very simple to understand with a little research you don't need to go to school for it.
Santos Bonacci-Your Soul Is Owned By The Vatican 3/5
[YOUTUBEIF]HFaMhq87EoI[/YOUTUBEIF]
in all honesty i am a anarcho-capitalist, but,i think for now going back to the articles of confederation and having a voluntary union as fast as humanly possible, would be a awesome start
the writing is on the wall
Santos Bonacci-Your Soul Is Owned By The Vatican 3/5
[YOUTUBEIF]HFaMhq87EoI[/YOUTUBEIF]
in all honesty i am a anarcho-capitalist, but,i think for now going back to the articles of confederation and having a voluntary union as fast as humanly possible, would be a awesome start
the writing is on the wall
Last edited:
Is there something inherently wrong about taxation? I appreciate it's applied very very badly right now, but surely the idea of individual contributions to the greater whole is a good thing?
Tax evasion is the real killer. The elite got there because they are the ones who designed the system and thus know it's loopholes. They have enough money to ensure that they know when loopholes are closing and which new ones to exploit. Just look at where the money is - there is at least $16 trillion ($16,000,000,000,000 - a lot of cash...) held in offshore accounts in the world, with some $6 trillion of that being held by 92,000 individuals, or >0.001% of the world's population. 1%? These guys spit all over the CEOs and bankers, these are the shareholders and investors who own all the cash, use our countries like their private fiefdoms and contribute precisely fuck all to the world.
A helpful visualization:
[YOUTUBEIF]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/YOUTUBEIF]
Tax evasion is the real killer. The elite got there because they are the ones who designed the system and thus know it's loopholes. They have enough money to ensure that they know when loopholes are closing and which new ones to exploit. Just look at where the money is - there is at least $16 trillion ($16,000,000,000,000 - a lot of cash...) held in offshore accounts in the world, with some $6 trillion of that being held by 92,000 individuals, or >0.001% of the world's population. 1%? These guys spit all over the CEOs and bankers, these are the shareholders and investors who own all the cash, use our countries like their private fiefdoms and contribute precisely fuck all to the world.
A helpful visualization:
[YOUTUBEIF]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/YOUTUBEIF]
wow this thread is leading down all kind of rabbit holes recently.
if i'm not mistaken some of the greatest achievements in US history were before the income tax was implemented. that is not to say you don't need some taxes, but the income tax is what makes you a slave. more then half of the income tax is used to pay down interest on the national debt which was created when money was needed and the fed printed it and loaned it to the gov at interest. so the gov is giving the right to create money to the private fed which then gets to lend it to the gov at interest without ever creating enough to ever pay the interest. if you gonna allow paper money, fair would be the gov creating the money them selves at zero interest so at least it can be used without incurring debt and enslaving future generations to that debt. but this is a whole other thread. we really should try to keep this focused on the Snowden case. i know that ne thing leads to another and it does make interesting reading, but lets try to get back to the main topic.
if i'm not mistaken some of the greatest achievements in US history were before the income tax was implemented. that is not to say you don't need some taxes, but the income tax is what makes you a slave. more then half of the income tax is used to pay down interest on the national debt which was created when money was needed and the fed printed it and loaned it to the gov at interest. so the gov is giving the right to create money to the private fed which then gets to lend it to the gov at interest without ever creating enough to ever pay the interest. if you gonna allow paper money, fair would be the gov creating the money them selves at zero interest so at least it can be used without incurring debt and enslaving future generations to that debt. but this is a whole other thread. we really should try to keep this focused on the Snowden case. i know that ne thing leads to another and it does make interesting reading, but lets try to get back to the main topic.
That is not a whole'nother thread.... That is this thread.... The Red 'v' Blue has been set aside and members are expounding on and espousing powerful ideas....
Fiat currency and the failed 100 year reign of the Federal Reserve Board, and Internal Revenue Service are at the root of the cancer we suffer from. Your very valid question of why WE pay interest to THEM to print OUR money is very valid and on topic as far as I'm concerned.
I know, I know..
I know, I know..
I always go the The Judge....but to me...he nails it right on the head. Let us get back to the basics.
From the Freedom Files
Above the Law
Published on Jul 10, 2013
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.
Everyone who works for the government in the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it. In our system of government, we expect that Congress will write the laws, the courts will interpret them and the president will enforce them. Indeed, the Constitution states that it is the president's affirmative duty to enforce the law. That duty is not an abstract formulation. Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees or whose enforcement might cause him or his political allies to lose popularity. It also means the president cannot make up his own version of the law as a substitute for what the Constitution commands or Congress has written.
In the modern era, presidents have rejected the value of the rule of law and instead followed their own political interests. President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law -- and we know that he famously did not enforce it.
But no modern president has picked and chosen which laws to enforce and which to ignore and which to rewrite to the extremes of President Obama. His radical rejection of the rule of law, which presents a clear and present danger to the freedom of us all, has had fatal consequences.
The law requires that if American tax dollars are being given to the government of another country, and that government is toppled by its military -- the common phrase is a coup d'‚tat -- the flow of cash shall stop immediately, lest we support financially those who have betrayed our values.
In Egypt, the military arrested the president, suspended the Constitution and installed a puppet regime. But Obama, embarrassed at the fall of the popularly elected but religiously fanatical government he supported, refuses to consider that military takeover a coup. Instead he has called it a popular uprising supported by the military, and he has continued the flow of your dollars into the hands of a military that has been murdering scores of peaceful demonstrators daily in the streets of Cairo.
The president's signature domestic legislation -- Obamacare -- is scheduled to become effective in stages. One of its provisions, requiring employers of more than 50 persons to offer health insurance acceptable to the feds to all of their employees, becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2014. In anticipation of its becoming law, insurance carriers and employers have calculated that instead of costs going down, as the president promised, they will certainly go up, resulting in the loss of jobs. So the president, mindful of the midterm congressional elections in November 2014 and fearful that Democrats who supported this law might suffer at the polls at the hands of deceived and thus angry voters, announced on the Fourth of July weekend that he planned not to enforce that provision until Jan. 1, 2015.
When he wanted to use military force in Libya and Pakistan -- two allies -- without congressional approval, out of fear, no doubt, that Congress might turn him down, he dispatched the CIA to do his killing. Why? Because federal law requires that he report all offensive use of the military to Congress and eventually obtain its approval for continued use. Because the CIA largely operates in secrecy, the president needn't report its behavior publicly or even acknowledge that it took place.
In the same vein, he recently moved all records of the Osama bin Laden killing from the military -- which carried it out -- to the CIA. Why? Because the military is largely susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act, which commands transparency, and the CIA is largely not. He probably fears that the truthful version of bin Laden's demise will become known. If so, it would be the fourth version of those events his administration has given.
When he wanted to kill an American and his 16-year-old son in Yemen because the American, though uncharged with any crime and unasked to come home, might be difficult to arrest while advocating war in a foreign country, he wrote his own rules for governing his own killings. He did so in secret and notwithstanding clear language in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.
And when he wanted to keep us safe from terrorists but servile to him by spying on all of us, he established an enormous network of domestic spies who have access to all of our phone calls, emails and text messages. And he did this despite unambiguous language in the Constitution requiring a search warrant based on particularized probable cause of crime about the records he wanted to seize or the venues he wanted to search.
What's going on?
What we have is a runaway government, dismissive of the Constitution it has sworn to uphold, contemptuous of the law it is required to enforce and driven by its own values of maximum control and minimum personal freedom. And we have a Congress supine enough to let this happen, as well as a judiciary so tangled in its own arcane procedures that immeasurable human freedom will be destroyed and Obama out of office before any meaningful judicial review can be had.
Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?
I know, I know..
I always go the The Judge....but to me...he nails it right on the head. Let us get back to the basics.
From the Freedom Files
Above the Law
Published on Jul 10, 2013
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.
Everyone who works for the government in the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it. In our system of government, we expect that Congress will write the laws, the courts will interpret them and the president will enforce them. Indeed, the Constitution states that it is the president's affirmative duty to enforce the law. That duty is not an abstract formulation. Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees or whose enforcement might cause him or his political allies to lose popularity. It also means the president cannot make up his own version of the law as a substitute for what the Constitution commands or Congress has written.
In the modern era, presidents have rejected the value of the rule of law and instead followed their own political interests. President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law -- and we know that he famously did not enforce it.
But no modern president has picked and chosen which laws to enforce and which to ignore and which to rewrite to the extremes of President Obama. His radical rejection of the rule of law, which presents a clear and present danger to the freedom of us all, has had fatal consequences.
The law requires that if American tax dollars are being given to the government of another country, and that government is toppled by its military -- the common phrase is a coup d'‚tat -- the flow of cash shall stop immediately, lest we support financially those who have betrayed our values.
In Egypt, the military arrested the president, suspended the Constitution and installed a puppet regime. But Obama, embarrassed at the fall of the popularly elected but religiously fanatical government he supported, refuses to consider that military takeover a coup. Instead he has called it a popular uprising supported by the military, and he has continued the flow of your dollars into the hands of a military that has been murdering scores of peaceful demonstrators daily in the streets of Cairo.
The president's signature domestic legislation -- Obamacare -- is scheduled to become effective in stages. One of its provisions, requiring employers of more than 50 persons to offer health insurance acceptable to the feds to all of their employees, becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2014. In anticipation of its becoming law, insurance carriers and employers have calculated that instead of costs going down, as the president promised, they will certainly go up, resulting in the loss of jobs. So the president, mindful of the midterm congressional elections in November 2014 and fearful that Democrats who supported this law might suffer at the polls at the hands of deceived and thus angry voters, announced on the Fourth of July weekend that he planned not to enforce that provision until Jan. 1, 2015.
When he wanted to use military force in Libya and Pakistan -- two allies -- without congressional approval, out of fear, no doubt, that Congress might turn him down, he dispatched the CIA to do his killing. Why? Because federal law requires that he report all offensive use of the military to Congress and eventually obtain its approval for continued use. Because the CIA largely operates in secrecy, the president needn't report its behavior publicly or even acknowledge that it took place.
In the same vein, he recently moved all records of the Osama bin Laden killing from the military -- which carried it out -- to the CIA. Why? Because the military is largely susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act, which commands transparency, and the CIA is largely not. He probably fears that the truthful version of bin Laden's demise will become known. If so, it would be the fourth version of those events his administration has given.
When he wanted to kill an American and his 16-year-old son in Yemen because the American, though uncharged with any crime and unasked to come home, might be difficult to arrest while advocating war in a foreign country, he wrote his own rules for governing his own killings. He did so in secret and notwithstanding clear language in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.
And when he wanted to keep us safe from terrorists but servile to him by spying on all of us, he established an enormous network of domestic spies who have access to all of our phone calls, emails and text messages. And he did this despite unambiguous language in the Constitution requiring a search warrant based on particularized probable cause of crime about the records he wanted to seize or the venues he wanted to search.
What's going on?
What we have is a runaway government, dismissive of the Constitution it has sworn to uphold, contemptuous of the law it is required to enforce and driven by its own values of maximum control and minimum personal freedom. And we have a Congress supine enough to let this happen, as well as a judiciary so tangled in its own arcane procedures that immeasurable human freedom will be destroyed and Obama out of office before any meaningful judicial review can be had.
Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?
You Americans do make me laugh with your opinions on Obamacare and the like sometimes
Frankly I disregard most things FOX News say out of hand... If you want some real news, go look at what other countries are saying about you in their news services.
I think steer clear of conspiracy-like ideas of government mind control and wide spread assassination; it does a lot to push more regular folks, who haven't explored the rabbit hole, away from the movement
Frankly I disregard most things FOX News say out of hand... If you want some real news, go look at what other countries are saying about you in their news services.
I think steer clear of conspiracy-like ideas of government mind control and wide spread assassination; it does a lot to push more regular folks, who haven't explored the rabbit hole, away from the movement
ChilcotinBuddha
Member
do some research and find out how many other countries have HAARP installations around the world.
(you may be suprised how many nations share that tech)
Throw in some research aboot cell towers and apply some critical thinking as well as turning off that cognitive dissonance and you may well be on the path to having a clue...now what you do with that knowledge remains to be seen BUT the amount of people sleepwalking thru their lives needs to change dramatically for there to be a positive outcome for humanity.
I hope the gerbil is running on that wheel, if not change the channel and go back to sleep because your not needed here and will just get in the way.
Popes can't canonize people (to declare them saints), it is a long boring religious process where two miracles need to be identified and validated by the church, then if the committee on sainthood approves the names are sent to the pope for final blessing.
I saw a pix of Snowden's girlfriend, Vatican City may not be the best landing spot for him
I saw a pix of Snowden's girlfriend, Vatican City may not be the best landing spot for him
Oliver Stone on NSA spying: Do we control the government, or does it control us? - Se
Oliver Stone on NSA spying: Do we control the government, or does it control us? - Se
Damn, it feels good to see so many people waking up...maybe we do stand a chance after all.
[YOUTUBEIF]0U37hl0n9mY[/YOUTUBEIF]
Oliver Stone on NSA spying: Do we control the government, or does it control us? - Se
Damn, it feels good to see so many people waking up...maybe we do stand a chance after all.
[YOUTUBEIF]0U37hl0n9mY[/YOUTUBEIF]
not really ... well, i sure as fuck can't cause i don't have enough reliable (validated) information. just because something makes sense, doesn't mean shit.
don't mind me, i just saw Gas Land II and i am sorely pissed. i am finally angry enough to do something about fracking. (did i just put a drone crosshair on my head?)
sorry I didn't realize the date but it is still relevant.
FBI Fake Terror Plot History: Judge Napolitano
[YOUTUBEIF]CwTpJ1EoV6A[/YOUTUBEIF]
'Underwear bomber' was working for the CIA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/underwear-bomber-working-for-cia?CMP=twt_gu
Bomber involved in plot to attack US-bound jet was working as an informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged
FBI Fake Terror Plot History: Judge Napolitano
[YOUTUBEIF]CwTpJ1EoV6A[/YOUTUBEIF]
'Underwear bomber' was working for the CIA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/underwear-bomber-working-for-cia?CMP=twt_gu
Bomber involved in plot to attack US-bound jet was working as an informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged
Last edited:
one more ,it is slightly off topic but it has to do with the government mob ,but a lot more concerning.we need food not phones.
Terrence Ingram Gets Hearing Three Weeks After Destruction of Evidence
[YOUTUBEIF]gqXCboEL-7k[/YOUTUBEIF]
Illinois illegally seizes Bees Resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup; Kills remaining Queens
http://www.globalresearch.ca/illino...santos-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/5336210
The Illinois Ag Dept. illegally seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram, without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News.
Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundup’s effects on bees, which he’s raised for 58 years. “They ruined 15 years of my research,” he told Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock.
A certified letter from the Ag Dept.’s Apiary Inspection Supervisor, Steven D. Chard, stated:
“During a routine inspection of your honeybee colonies by … Inspectors Susan Kivikko and Eleanor Balson on October 23, 2011, the bacterial disease ‘American Foulbrood’ was detected in a number of colonies located behind your house…. Presence of the disease in some of your colonies was confirmed via test results from the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland that analyzed samples collected from your apiary….”
Ingram can prove his bees did not have foulbrood, and planned to do so at a hearing set in April, but the state seized his bees at the end of March. They have not returned them and no one at the Ag Dept. seems to know where his bees are.
The bees could have been destroyed, or they could have been turned over to Monsanto to ascertain why some of his bees are resistant to Roundup. Without the bees as evidence, Ingram simply cannot defend against the phony charges of foulbrood.
Worse, all his queens died after Kivikko and Balson “inspected” his property, outside of his presence and without a warrant.
Of note, Illinois beekeepers are going underground after Ingram’s experience and refuse to register their hives, in case the state tries to steal their private property on phony claims.
Terrence Ingram Gets Hearing Three Weeks After Destruction of Evidence
[YOUTUBEIF]gqXCboEL-7k[/YOUTUBEIF]
Illinois illegally seizes Bees Resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup; Kills remaining Queens
http://www.globalresearch.ca/illino...santos-roundup-kills-remaining-queens/5336210
The Illinois Ag Dept. illegally seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram, without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News.
Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundup’s effects on bees, which he’s raised for 58 years. “They ruined 15 years of my research,” he told Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock.
A certified letter from the Ag Dept.’s Apiary Inspection Supervisor, Steven D. Chard, stated:
“During a routine inspection of your honeybee colonies by … Inspectors Susan Kivikko and Eleanor Balson on October 23, 2011, the bacterial disease ‘American Foulbrood’ was detected in a number of colonies located behind your house…. Presence of the disease in some of your colonies was confirmed via test results from the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland that analyzed samples collected from your apiary….”
Ingram can prove his bees did not have foulbrood, and planned to do so at a hearing set in April, but the state seized his bees at the end of March. They have not returned them and no one at the Ag Dept. seems to know where his bees are.
The bees could have been destroyed, or they could have been turned over to Monsanto to ascertain why some of his bees are resistant to Roundup. Without the bees as evidence, Ingram simply cannot defend against the phony charges of foulbrood.
Worse, all his queens died after Kivikko and Balson “inspected” his property, outside of his presence and without a warrant.
Of note, Illinois beekeepers are going underground after Ingram’s experience and refuse to register their hives, in case the state tries to steal their private property on phony claims.
- Status
