Romney’s Billionaire Vulture Paul Singer – Lead in Lipstick – Judge Napolitano Both Barrels
Every Phrase is Powerful!
Another Zionist, neocon billionaire controlling America’s election through ill gotten gain. Paul Singer has been a zealous supporter of gay marriage in New York. He has a ruthless way of making money using the third world poor.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The untold story of the sources of the loot controlled by Paul “The Vulture” Singer and why he needs to buy the White House.
|| Print ||
|Written by Becky Akers - New American|
|Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:33|
|States and localities across the country are wielding the Tenth Amendment against the heinous NDAA of 2012, promising to nullify its anti-constitutional threat of “indefinitely detaining” us. For example, “commissioners” in Kansas’ Cherokee County “may vote on a resolution condemning sectionsof the NDAA as a violation of several provisions in the U.S. Constitution … The proposed resolution notes that the military policing of citizens ‘is repugnant to a free society.’”Actually, policingis repugnant to a free society. Exactly who carries out such tyranny, whether “police forces” or an army, is largely a matter of semantics. But in dumbed-down America, propaganda and a deft change in terminology often fool the sheeple.Police are nothing less than soldiers a country’s rulers turn loose on its taxpayers. Such troops have seldom been armed as heavily as those sent against external enemies, but America’s increasingly “militarized” cops flout that rule of thumb. And that brings us full circle, because prior to the nineteenth century, regular armies “policed” cities.One fabled incident from America’s colonial history illustrates this. In 1770, the British Army’s policing of a town in Massachusetts culminated in the Boston Massacre.
The Army’s 19 months of invasion — sorry, policing there before the Massacre had been typical. Nor was Boston the only city so cursed. At home in England, riots regularly rocked eighteenth-century London. And the government just as regularly sicced its enforcers on the dissidents. Any army’s raison d’etre is to impose rulers’ whims on those refusing to obey. It mattered not whether the rebels were French cavalry, Prussian cannoneers or beleaguered British citizens whose taxes financed the infantry shooting at them.
Or American colonists becoming uppity and tiresome in their protests. Bostonians had been among the most vocal in their opposition to such incipient dictatorship as the Stamp Act of 1765. They also objected to paying customs duties — vehemently. In fact, they had driven the vermin that stole this money for the king out of their city.
Ann Hulton’s brother was among the tax-collectors who fled; she wrote, “Every officer of the Crown that does his duty is become obnoxious & they must either fly or be sacrificed. … These Sons of Violence after attacking Houses, breaking Windows, beating, Stoning & bruizing several gentlemen belong’g to the Customs, the Collector mortally & burning his boat.”
And so the government sent troops to help Customs rob the colonists. That remains cops’ chief function today. They ticket drivers while arresting and delivering other victims to the State so it can fine them or feed them to the prison-industrial complex — all while burbling that this somehow “protects” us.
Adamantly refuting that claim are the corpses littering cops’ wake. Though the British Army in Boston slaughtered only 5 people in the “Massacre,” police kill an average of about 200 people every year — and that counts only the ones who expire “in custody,” not the dozens more who die as innocent bystanders or because police bust down the wrong door, and the householder, defending himself from what he assumes is a burglary, succumbs to a hail of “official” bullets.
Adding insult to fatal injury, Our Rulers dub these unfortunates “Justifiable Homicides.” Though we are the geese laying Leviathan’s golden eggs, the beast does not mourn our deaths. Indeed, the U.S. Department of [In]Justice decrees that “the use of deadly force against a police officer is almost never justified, while the use of deadly force by police often is… [K]illings by police are referred to as ‘justifiable homicides,’ and the persons that police kill are referred to as ‘felons.’ ” Yep, I’m dizzy, too, from such risibly circular “reasoning.”
How did we arrive at such a sorry and despotic pass? One of the primary causes is the State’s cynical domestication of its armed forces. Like Cherokee County’s commissioners, most Americans still fear an army’s patrolling them. But they drop their wariness when Leviathan renames that army “police department.” Yet if we restrict the military to mere arrests as we do cops, what substantive difference is there?
Armies patrolling civilians became “police” thanks to a British politician named Robert Peel. Charged with calming Ireland when its residents rebelled against their British overlords in the early nineteenth century, Peel proposed that “Peace Preservation Police” rather than Redcoats suppress dissent. The “Peace Preservers” succeeded at controlling the Irish so well that Peel advocated the same remedy a decade later, this time to quell unrest in England.
Peel fussed endlessly about the non-existent differences between “police” and the army they replaced. He urged his recruits to think of themselves as part of the community, and vice versa: “The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence.” He never explained how “communities” had not only existed but flourished for millennia without bullies bossing them.
Nations world-wide immediately grasped the indispensability of Peel’s “solution” to taxpayers’ dissatisfaction with the government their money buys. Here was a “force” drawn from their own ranks rather than the prisons and poverty from which armies traditionally drafted men, friends and family whom neighbors would accept as they spied on and fined them while continually assuring them it was for their own good.
By 1853, “bobbies,” as the British called them in Peel’s honor when they weren’t employing far more Anglo-Saxon epithets, had infiltrated America. Apparently, their extreme benefit to the State outweighed their evisceration of the Third Amendment’s spirit. New York City was the first to field this army-by-another-name; Philadelphia in 1856 and Boston in 1859 quickly followed.
Today cops reign supreme in the land of the free. Every city and town, regardless of how large or small, supports a police force; even rural areas and vast stretches of wilderness boast some sort of armed guards protecting the State and its interests from us.
Ideally, Americans would shuck off all this policing (which is distinct from enforcing the law: naturally, we would still defend ourselves from the few real criminals that curse any society, though we’d do so through private resources, not Leviathan’s). But until that halcyon day arrives, we must at a minimum bar the Feds from meddling with police forces. Citizens could then choose to leave areas where cops oppress them in favor of freer ones.
As a bonus, that might set Robert Peel spinning in his grave.