Comment: Sometimes I just don't feel like putting my "all" into responding to these things. (Especially when I get them at 1:00AM and I'm going on a few hours sleep.) If you're looking for a more thorough refutation, Paul Watson dropped a bomb on this guy here.
Angry guy writes:
"I see that your motto is "Stop the Lie." You post an article that implies the Federal government was responsible for gun confiscations in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster. However, it was the New Orleans Superintendent and the Deputy Chief of Police who gave that order. It was carried out by New Orleans police, those that didn't abandon the city, and the National Guard, from Oklahoma, not Federal troops. It was a Federal judge who issued a temporary injunction to stop the gun confiscations.
But who brought this urban legend to you? Weren't Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson the "investigative journalists" who claimed that a 4-star general was sacked for upsetting Bush's plans for staging a nuclear attack on the US in order to declare war on Iran? This is in addition to their claims that both the Oklahoma City bombing and 911 were US government operations. Didn't they also claim that the Reagan assassination attempt was also a Bush family endeavor? And aren't they also claiming that vaccines are being contaminated with mercury by the government?
I think you guys would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Maybe it time you look at yourselves and determine if your cause is so critical that is justifies lying. Perhaps it is time for you to Stop the Lies."
Good Morning "X,"
First, I'd like to point out that we link to a lot of articles. Given your assessment, I guess I'm lucky I never linked to the "12 miners are alive" article, lest I would have surely been attacked for being a liar.
The most important information contained in the "gun confiscation" article (IMO) was the fact gun confiscations were taking place in America. ...if I've read your complaint accurately, you're unhappy that Alex Jones did not sufficiently differentiate between local and federal authorities seizing weapons. Alex often speaks of the "militarization" of the police and how that plays into the creation of a "Police State." My guess is, in a martial law situation, he doesn't see much of a difference between the two. -Just a guess though.
As to the issue of a Federal Judge stepping in to stop the gun confiscations, I say bravo. And I'd add to that I've never suggested or meant to suggest that "everyone" in our Federal government is bad. Actually, I believe the majority are not. But, as in any "society" or "group of people" there are some that ARE bad and those are the ones that we've got to worry about. The more power they have, the more dangerous they become. (I think history will back me up on this one.)
That takes me to the next point (your comment regarding my "StopTheLie" motto.)
The primary "lie" I'd like to "stop" (thanks for asking) is the false assertion that government only serves our interests. Or maybe a better summary would be: The assertion that we should blindly trust our government; that it would never become tyrannical or use its power against us - that it cannot become corrupt, criminal or (in effect) the greatest threat our country faces. Many of our founding fathers were sure, if we ever did "lose America," it would come as a result of those acting within OUR OWN Government. (Hence the reason for the Constitution / Bill of Rights.)
For all intents and purposes, "America" (as she was intended to be) is already long gone. You need to go back nearly a century to uncover the departure from her intended course (1913 - creation of the Federal Reserve and Income Tax.) Please check out "The Creature from Jekyll Island." It is the best resource I've found regarding the "takeover" of our country. (Be sure to read the reviews.)
Forgive me for not addressing the other points pertaining to what Alex and Paul believe. -They are entitled to their opinion and it isn't my job to defend them. The bottom line is, if only 10% of what they say is accurate, we've got real problems. My experience (having researched much of what they put forward) is they are accurate far more often than not. -for instance, have you seen the urban warfare training videos? ...where they actually train to take our guns away? If not, I can try to dig some up for you.
StopTheLie.com ---->> Comment: These two "Urban Warfare" clips added 1.7.06
Comment: In fairness, I've posted "Angry Guys" follow up. I must say, there are only a couple things I'm not in full agreement with. -Amazing, isn't it? Dig a little deeper and we just might find a lot more in common than "others" would have us believe.
"Angry Guy" responds:
Thanks for your response for explaining your position. I have to sadly agree with a lot of it. For all intents and purposes, we no longer live in a democratic Republic ruled by constitutional law.
The final nail in the coffin was the Supreme Court Kelp Decision as without property rights there are no political rights. While the erosion probably started with FDR and his promulgation of Executive Orders, accelerated with Nixon and the Imperial Presidency, went out of control under Clinton (see EO 13093 which in effect nullified the 9th & 10th Amendments); the reaction to events of 911 ended the Bill of Rights and the Right of Habeas Corpus thru the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. Furthermore, Bush has said in effect he has the right to ignore laws he disagrees with thru the use of his signing statement reservations, which Clinton used also.
My issue with your post was and is that the article was not vetted well. As an "editor" that is your responsibility, or at least there should have been some caveats. As you said, if Jones is only 10% right, we have problems. That's true, but like the boy who falsely cried wolf, he negates his credibility with too many false or unprovable canards and it rubs off on your site. However, like you, I believe the big issue is the violation of law abiding citizens rights, made all the more egregious by the fact that so many of the police who were to protect them went AWOL. I am old school in that I believe that if the police and courts cannot or will not protect citizens, the citizens retain the right to protect themselves, including against rogue police. Believe it or not, I am not a wild eyed anarchist, but a conservative Republican (no boos or catcalls) who believes the Constitution says what it means and that we don't need a law degree to interpret it.
I would agree with you that government often does not serve our interests. Considering the history of humans, government can never be trusted completely or blindly to do so. As is said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I am a believer that the government that governs least, governs best, with the caveat that different circumstance require either more or less government. It is pretty close the libertarian position but in recent decades they have pushed so far that under their concept government would be more ineffective than it was under the Articles of Confederation. What we need is a serious return to the principle of the Constitution with a reactivation of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
As for the Federal Reserve, I am sure you are aware it is owned by private banks and is not a Federal agency. while the official list of who owns the banks is classified, the names include some of the biggest financial families of Europe. It has been rumored JFK had intended to convert our monetary system from the FRS to the US Treasury. This may have been a factor in his assassination. As for the income tax, only an anarchist thinks a country can survive without taxation. But it must be fair. Today, the IRS can arrest anyone and claim they made an error and probably be right.
What we need is another American Revolution, in the voting booths. The Abramoff scandal gives us a good starting place. First, all donations should be in the public record. Lobbyists should be forced out of D.C. and forced to do business publicly in the states of those they wish to lobby. Former politicians and top level agency heads should be barred from the floor of congress. Also, the same people should be barred for 5 years from employment by firms they formerly worked with (that is required of regular military officers by the way). All bills should be posted on the Internet for at least 72 hours before a final vote so that politicians can see their alleged handiwork if they're so inclined and so that the public can comment before passage. No amendment to a bill should be allowed that doesn't pertain directly to the subject matter at hand. Earmarks of funds by politicians should be eliminated or severely restricted in order to stop pork barreling. No politician or government official should be allowed to take corporate paid junkets and should only travel by government or commercial transportation unless not available. All violations by companies in contracts should be published and agency heads who fail to do so should face charges. Laws concerning barring corporations from further government contracts must be enforced. There should be a constitutional amendment that declares that any Executive Order or treaty that violates the Constitution is null and void and that the attempt to enforce an unlawful EO is grounds for impeachment.
Well, Joe, so much for my bending your ear with the ravings of a politically incorrect conservative Republican. I would like to believe that this grand experiment in a democratic constitutional government cannot only survive, but thrive. We should once again become a beacon of light and hope to the world."
Thank you for a well thought out reply. Your letter reminded me of some points that I've been "putting off" addressing. For now, I've just responded to one of the more important ones. Please forgive the "article" format. -I like to use opportunities (like the one our exchange presented) to write articles that anyone can read / gain information from. (I'm certain you might already know a good deal of the information that appears below; but it will be new to a lot of people who read it.) I will definitely try to get to some of your other points in the near future.
<<<As for the income tax, only an anarchist thinks a country can survive without taxation.>>>
These are two separate issues. One, the issue of needing "taxes" to finance government. Two, the issue of whether or not an INCOME tax is needed.
Few Americans realize that this country DID NOT have an income tax prior to 1913. -Think about that for a minute. America went from being a "start up" (in 1776) to the most prosperous nation on the planet without an "income tax." (Let alone the intrusive, bloated and dare I say "unconstitutional" government that goes with it.) --Continue Reading here: