Saturday, April 20, 2013

MARTIAL LAW PSYOP COMPLETE..

...and the peasants cheered their occupiers!

Really? Is it really this easy to lose our liberty? My friends, if you are not disturbed about what you have seen in Boston this week, you should be. If you are OK with armed men coming INTO YOUR HOUSE anytime THEY DEEM NECESSARY, then you need to stop reading this now and go back to watching Breaking Bad or Desperate Housewives re-runs.

Look closely at the Humvee gunner...
 
Here's what I saw. An entire city of over a million people held hostage...not by a lone teenager who was running for his life, but by a heavily-armed government. Law-abiding citizens, told to STOP YOUR LIVES, STAY INSIDE, and only open the door TO US...oh, and it's for your own safety.

Here we have a government agency, known for luring disillusioned young men into committing acts of mass violence, then giving them fake bombs, arresting them and then proclaiming how they are keeping us safe. What happens if they, um, give them REAL BOMBS? Well, they KNOW who the perpetrators are, where they set the bombs, and where to go to get the security camera footage that will identify them. From there, it's just a simple matter of TAKING YOUR LIBERTY in order to kill or capture the ones they gave the bombs to. And you cheer them when they do.

6 comments:

  1. I so feel the same way as you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not siding with the whole martial law thing, but you have to remember the government has a duty to protect it's people. Most people aren't like you or I, where if the bomber did seek refuge in our house it would be a bad day for him.... In other words he would be shot for f-ed up severely. The bomber could had gone into grandma's house and said something like, "When the cops knock, tell them everything is fine or I'll kill you!" It wasn't a "martial law test", they just didn't want Joe Blow the red neck walking to the store for a case of Natty Light, or some 16 year old girl she was going to decide to drive to the mall. The wanted people of the streets so no one would interfere in another car chase, or get car jacked, or get hurt while they were trying to catch a terrorist. They wouldn't had even needed to tell me that there was a curfew and to stay in the house, I would had been in my safe room armed to the teeth incase the bomber tried to ditch the police and indeed of hiding in a boat, trying to break into my house to try to hide from the police or take someone hostage. I am a firm believer in the second amendment and all that, but they just didn't want people out on the streets or the terrorist hiding in someone's house. That being said, I don't want them in my house either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baa Baaa baaaaaaaaaa

      Delete
  3. Anonymous...you raise a great point! DUTY TO PROTECT...what if there is no threat? Then there is no money. So, why not CREATE the threat and fund it? Remember, after the 18-hour lockdown of a MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA, with ARMED PERSONNEL conducting WARRANTLESS house-to-house searches, it was a citizen who found the bomber. Where do YOU draw the line?

    ReplyDelete
  4. fellow GC residentMay 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM

    Hi Russ,
    Have you noticed in the paper that Bean Station has banned guns in their parks, etc?
    A letter to the editor might be a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had not heard of that, but will dig into it. I'd love to catch a ranger or cop carrying in one of these areas and ask them if THEY knew about the ban :)

      Delete