Saturday, July 30, 2011



The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant’s power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated. Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it’s actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a “hidden” and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we “need them” in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are “for the greater good”. Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

Through co-option, modern day tyrant’s can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These “false paradigms” give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over “left and right”, or “Democrat versus Republican”, for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

You’ll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naïve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that “everyone else” must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be “crazy”, or “extremist”. Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and “service” to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero’s status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see “extremists” and “terrorists” everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

Lies become “necessary” in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for “peace”. Torture becomes an ugly but “useful” method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a “natural reaction” to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as “terrorists”. Assassination is justified as a means for “saving lives”. Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don’t discuss it.

All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function.



When Should You Shoot A Cop

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that ”the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of ”government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? ”You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ’plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a ”right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

Friday, July 29, 2011


Caught on tape: Police beat and taser 'gentle' mentally-ill homeless man to death

By Rachel Quigley
Last updated at 9:12 AM on 29th July 2011

A shocking video has been released allegedly showing police officers tasering and beating a homeless man to death who they claim was resisting arrest.
Though the video is not clear, eye witnesses say the homeless man - Kelly Thomas, 37 - was unable to put up any resistance and was lying on the ground on his front when the attack took place on July 5.
His screams and cries for his father can be heard amid the tasering noises.
Scroll down for video
Dead: Mentally ill homeless man Kelly Thomas, 37, was beaten and tasered to death by police for allegedly 'resisting arrest'
Dead: Mentally ill homeless man Kelly Thomas, 37, was beaten and tasered to death by police for allegedly 'resisting arrest'

Shocking: This picture shows the extent of the injuries Thomas received after being beaten up by six police officers
Shocking: This picture shows the extent of the injuries Thomas received after being beaten up by six police officers
The video was shot by a student in Fullerton, California. Kelly Thomas was beaten so badly he died in hospital several days later.
According to Gawker, Thomas - who suffered from schizophrenia - caught the attention of the police after someone reported that a burglar was breaking into cars parked near a Fullerton bus station.
When officers approached Thomas in the depot parking lot and tried to arrest him, he resisted.

Read more:


The attack on the 9/11 cross exposes the bizarre fundamentalism of American atheists

America’s culture war took an unpleasant turn this week. A group of atheists filed a suit to take down a cross erected at the Lower Manhattan memorial to the victims of 9/11. The cross was formed from two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble. Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheists, called the display a breach of the separation between church and state. He said that the cross “has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross.”
The story itself is a storm in a tea cup. The cross will probably stay because it has attained a cultural status beyond religious symbolism. To many viewers it is a physical reminder of the devastation and a metaphor for the resurrection of New York as a city. What is remarkable is where Silverman’s American Atheists have chosen to make their big stand. Picking on a memorial to the victims of 9/11 exposes the profound lack of sensitivity of the New Atheism and its obsessive, socially awkward edge. Some atheist activists suggested that the cross could stay if it were accompanied by symbols from other religions. They miss the point that the cross was only erected because it was found at Ground Zero. Presumably, if a fax machine had been discovered melted into the shape of Ganesh then that would have gone display, too. But that didn’t happen and it’s extraordinary, given its tragic origins, that the American Atheists can’t tolerate this modest statement. What will they protest about next? The crosses over the graves at Arlington Cemetery?
The fact is that the New Atheists aren’t interested in either pluralism or being left alone. They are iconoclasts and they enjoy breaking things. Take the case of the Mojave Cross, erected in 1934 in memory of Americans killed in war. It was a beautiful, simple white cross that stood above the rocky desert and gave comfort to millions who saw it. The problem for those who cared: it was planted on public land. For years it was subject to vandalism and law suits, until the Supreme Court ruled that it could stay after the earth it stood on was transferred to a Veterans group. In May 2010, it went missing – stolen by a protestor. Again, it’s important to stress that the Mojave Cross had never been a purely Christian monument. Like the 9/11 cross, it used a universal symbol of death and rebirth to celebrate the sacrifices of millions of America’s soldiers. Whatever lunatic stole it, it was a truly sociopathic act.

COMMENT: These are the same types running the ACLU, and run your local government offices.  They deserve every brand of hurt you can inflict on them, but shunning and ridicule work great. 

They're sissies and cowards.  Get in their face.


A dying town is a golden opportunity for those Patriots who can't seem to gain enough support from the supposed 'patriot movement' to mount a proper recall election campaign with a full ticket.  Get yours together, move in, grow your own food, be mutually sufficient and with the town, take over.

Then, use the town as an example of what Freedom is.  Use it to spread the Second American Revolution to other towns like the town you did take over, the town that was dying and you brought back to life because you actually did something beside cut and past Jefferson and Von Mises quotes ad nauseum.


Ghost towns on the increase as rural America accounts for just 16% of population

  • Migration will form a virtual mega-city stretching through Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland and ending in the capital Washington D.C.
  • In 1910 72% of Americans lived in rural areas
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:42 PM on 28th July 2011

Vast swathes of the U.S. countryside are emptying and communities becoming ghost towns as rural America now only accounts for just 16 per cent of the population.
The 2010 census results suggest that by 2050 many of these areas could shrink to virtually nothing as businesses collapse and schools close.
This dramatic population implosion is the culmination of a century of migration to cities, as in 1910 the share of rural America was at 72 per cent.
Blackout: This official graphic shows dominant U.S. urban areas, marked in white, while large swathes of rural areas are becoming darker as people move away
Blackout: This official graphic shows dominant U.S. urban areas, marked in white, while large swathes of rural areas are becoming darker as people move away
In 1950 the countryside remained home to a majority of Americans, amid post-World War II economic expansion and the baby boom.
However, once busy areas have been abandoned, in South Dakota for example, the town of Scenic is up for sale for $799,000 as today just eight people live there.

COMMENT:  Dude, 8 people!  1,000 patriots with just 800 bucks apiece, or 100 well heeled Americans with 8000 dollars could ignite the SAR proper!

Overall the share of people in rural areas over the past decade fell to 16 percent, passing the previous low of 20 percent in 2000, and is expected to drop further because of the economic crisis.
But in contrast American cities are booming and will continue to swallow suburban communities, producing a virtual mega-city stretching through Boston, Massachusetts, through New York City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland and ending in the capital Washington, D.C.
'Some of the most isolated rural areas face a major uphill battle, with a broad area of the country emptying out,' said Mark Mather, associate vice president of the Population Reference Bureau, a research group in Washington, D.C.
'Many rural areas can't attract workers because there aren't any jobs, and businesses won't relocate there because there aren't enough qualified workers. So they are caught in a downward spiral.'

COMMENT: Which is why you go in mutually sufficient-not aiming for individual self-sufficiency but together you can support each other.  A more realistic goal I think.

Back to article:
The rural share is expected to drop further as the U.S. population balloons from 309 million to 400 million by 2050, leading even more people to crowd cities and suburbs and fill in the land around them.
Ghost town: Scenic South Dakota was once a thriving train stop, complete with a saloon, and two jails, but now all the businesses are closed and eight people live there
Ghost town: Scenic South Dakota was once a thriving train stop, complete with a saloon, and two jails, but now all the businesses are closed and eight people live there
In 2010, the census found cities grew overall by 11 percent with the biggest gains in suburbs or small- or medium-sized cities.
In fact, of the 10 fastest-growing places, all were small cities incorporated into the suburbs of expanding metro areas, mostly in California, Arizona and Texas.
In all, the share of Americans living in suburbs has climbed to an all-time high of 51 percent.
Despite sharp declines in big cities in the Northeast and Midwest since 2000 due to the recession, U.S. cities increased their share by 3 percent to a third.

Freedom is out there.  Take it!

Read more:



'It has to go away': Facebook director calls for an end to internet anonymity

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:24 AM on 28th July 2011
Facebook's marketing director has called for an end to on-line anonymity, saying internet users would 'behave a lot better' if everyone had to use real names when surfing or posting on the internet.

Randi Zuckerberg, Facebook’s marketing director and sister of multi-millionaire founder Mark, made the comments during a round table discussion on cyber bullying.

The ubiquitous social networking site, which has been at the centre of recent controversy over internet privacy and bullying issues, currently requires all its members to use their real names and emails when signing on.
ID: Randi Zuckerberg, marketing director of Facebook has spoken out against internet anonymity in a bid to end cyber bullying
ID: Randi Zuckerberg, marketing director of Facebook has spoken out against internet anonymity in a bid to end cyber bullying
Mrs Zuckerberg argued the end of on-line anonymity could help curb the trend of trolling and harassment on the web.
Speaking at a Marie Claire panel discussion on social media, she said: ' I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away.
'People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.'
The comments echo those of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt who has previously labelled internet anonymity a 'dangerous' precedent, before predicting government intervention will one day lead to its demise.

Read more:

COMMENT: The end of internet anonymity is the end of Free Speech.  These toads want to be part of the beast and since you guys were dumb enough to put your truthful information down when you registered, you're fucked.

I take pride that there the only truthful thing on my facebook page is that I used a e-mail address.

Read more:

Wednesday, July 27, 2011




Motor oil in her van didn't contain heroin after all

Janet Goodin, of Warroad, Minn., was strip-searched and jailed on mistaken suspicion of drug offences when she crossed into Canada at Sprague.
Janet Goodin, of Warroad, Minn., was strip-searched and jailed on mistaken suspicion of drug offences when she crossed into Canada at Sprague.
Federal officials will review the arrest of a 66-year-old Minnesota woman who was held at the Remand Centre for 12 days on suspicion of smuggling heroin into Manitoba.
Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews said this afternoon that he has requested a report from the president of the Canada Border Services Agency into the arrest in April of Janet Goodin.

Journal excerpts from an alleged 66-year-old heroin trafficker

Before the arrest

"I stood on the curb and watched as they unloaded everything from the van. I kept looking at the time on my cellphone, hoping they would hurry so I would not be late meeting my daughters. As I stood and watched, they pulled out a small canning jar of what I assumed to be motor oil left over from an oil change. They asked me what it was and handed the jar to me. I replied that I supposed it was engine oil, and I tried to remove the lid so that I could show them. The seal was too tight and I could not open it, so I handed it back. One of the men searching the van then handed it to one of the female border workers that had come out of the building. I thought probably they were going to dump it out or just confiscate it because the jar was not labelled."

Motor oil or heroin?

"One of the female agents said that they tested the 'substance' in the canning jar and it tested positive for something. I understood her to say that the oil in the jar tested positive for some substance which indicated the presence of HEROIN!
Thus, my nightmare began.
The border agent informed me that I was going to be arrested... I asked if I could call my daughter and let her know what was happening, and they refused to let me call her. They handcuffed me, and the rest of the night is a nightmarish blur of being interrogated several times by different people, the utter humiliation of a strip search, and long periods of sitting alone in that little room."

In jail

"The days have all been pretty much running together. During the day, we are to have every other hour out in the common area, unless it is mealtime or medication time, or there is some other reason to cut the hour short. Mealtime consists of picking up a covered tray and eating in the cells. There is a lot of food, and some of the women say they have gained weight while there. There is very little exercise; occasionally one tier or the other will be allowed to go to the gym for recreation. There is a stationary bike, several exercise machines and a ping-pong table in the gym.
"I have not been able to properly clean my dentures since I got here. I have asked several times for cleaner; I was told to ask the nurse. I asked the nurse, and she said they don't provide that, and it is not available through the canteen either. They finally wrote up a form to leave at the main office giving me permission to have my daughter bring some for me. The girl that came in yesterday is going home today, along with one of the other girls. I wonder if and when I will ever get to be with my family again."

-- Janet Goodin

Related Items

As first reported in today's Winnipeg Free Press, Goodin, a 66-year-old widow and grandmother, said her life was turned upside down this past April after she was arrested at the border after a jar of motor oil in her vehicle was mistaken for heroin.
She was strip-searched by border guards, then turned over to RCMP, who charged her with three trafficking-related offences.  Goodin spent 12 days in jail before a more thorough analysis by the RCMP revealed the jar did not contain heroin.  The charges were eventually dropped.
"Whether there were any errors or changes that need to be made, I'll have to wait until I receive a full report," Toews said.
Toews would not comment on whether the Canadian government would issue an apology to Goodin.
"Whatever actions are appropriate, either CSBA or the government will take," he said.
Goodin said she was heading from her home in Warroad, Minn., to Sprague, Man., to play bingo on April 20 when Canadian border guards at the Sprague port of entry started searching her van and, in a cubby, found a canning jar containing brownish liquid. Sprague is about 30 kilometres northwest of Warroad, which is about 200 kilometres southeast of Winnipeg.
Goodin, who retired after working as an administrative assistant for organizations like Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., said she was shocked after the jar of what she thought was motor oil tested positive for drugs. She said she was handcuffed, interrogated and jailed.
"It was so surreal and so out of context that I just couldn't believe what was happening," she said.
"I have never been so humiliated in my life."



For fuck's sake just SHOOT THEM ALREADY!

Just shoot the oath traitors and grab a six pack, you won't feel a tinge of guilt.


Norway. The shooter's Facebook page was modified AFTER the shootings. It was changed from Norwegian text to American English, "friend requests" were approved, and most ominously, the descriptors of "Christian" and "Conservative" were ADDED AFTER THE SHOOTINGS. Pamela Geller has the before and after screen shots from the Google cache HERE. (UPDATE: It is theorized that differences in the profile appearance have to do with whether or not one is "logged in" to Facebook and from where. I know pretty much NOTHING about Facebook, but that does sound plausible.) Also, large swaths of the shooter's 1500 page diatribe are copied word-for-word from the Unabomber's manifesto. Finally, the Oslo police let slip that they knew the shooter's name before arresting him, and that he surrendered to the police who "called his name". That sure seems odd. The whole thing seems odd, to put it mildly. I really can't think of how the shooter could have handed any more of a propaganda coup to the very people he claimed to be against. It also fits perfectly into the propaganda narrative of white, Christian conservatives being the number one terror threat that the Obama regime has been pushing hard for the last month. They are going to use this to enter into full-blown government persecution of the Church and any and all speech to the right of the extreme far-left. Watch it happen. Finally, the sheer confluence of events - this murderous rampage, the forthcoming "debt crisis" that Obama is utterly hellbent on bringing to fruition, the forthcoming Palestinian statehood maneuver in September, the whole gunrunning scheme coming to light. This truly feels like it could be the historical analogue of the Reichstag Fire.

Manifesto as Fake as Obama's Birth Certificate
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - July 26, AD 2011 10:35 AM MST
This is starting to come into focus - just a bit. The Norwegian murderer's "manifesto" is pretty much a 1500 page cut-and-paste job. Lots of word-for-word plagiarism. It appears that it may have been constructed quoting from multiple folks in the anti-jihad movement in order to then "implicate", or at least damn-by-implied-association people who obviously had nothing to do with the Norwegian Nutter. This was sent to me by reader L last night.
Click here and read "Sagunto's" multiple citations.
Great work there by "Sagunto". Finding plagiarism (if that is the correct term for this) really isn't that difficult. Here is how you do it. Find a sentence or phrase in an essay that is relatively unique in composition. For example, the sentence I just wrote above:
"It appears to me that it may have been constructed quoting from multiple folks in the anti-jihad movement in order to then "implicate", or at least damn-by-implied-association people who obviously had nothing to do with the Norwegian Nutter.
In the entire history of humanity and the English language, those words have NEVER been assembled in that order ever before. Therefore, one can do a simple google or other search engine search on that sentence by putting quotation marks around it in the search engine entry field. This will yield EXACT match results. So, with Brevik's manifesto, all one need do is pull out unique sentences, or even just phrases, and do a search on them. Any matches will pop right up.
It seems to me that if Brevik was an insane "philosopher" like the Unabomber, he would be all about writing his own stuff. Writing your own stuff is kinda the point for philosophers - both the sane and the insane. The Brevik "manifesto" seems to be more of a contrived "smoking gun" specifically designed to implicate prominent names in the anti-jihad movement. And that is exactly what they are doing. They have already gone after Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller (from Atlas Shrugs), the guys and girls over at and Robert Spencer to name just a few.
And yes, even I have an anti-gun propagandist who is tasked with "smearing" me on the internet. He doesn't get much traction, but he sure tries! About all he can do is call me "crazy" over and over and over again, but sure enough, within hours of the Norwegian attacks, he made a post calling me "America's Brevik". Now, you might be thinking that this is no big deal and I certainly do take this guy with a grain of salt, but there is one aspect to this that bears note, and I think perhaps ties back to the phenomenon of the constructed Brevik manifesto and the immediate attempts to smear anti-jihad authors. This propagandist assigned to me? He works and runs his blog out of the United Nations World Food Programme office in Rome. No kidding. The kind gent at the following link sent me a heads up back in February when he saw the U.N. blogger's first post about me. The U.N. blogger's handle is Mikeb302000. Copy and paste the URL below to see both IP address proof AND Mikeb302000's own admission of his location and employment.
Can you now see why I view all of this Norway stuff with extreme suspicion? I already personally know that the U.N. pays people (with OUR tax dollars, by the way) to act as agents provocateurs against the United States, its Constitution and its citizens. The U.N. wants to disarm Americans via the Small Arms Treaty and has the full cooperation of the Obama/Clinton machine. Operation Fast and Furious was designed and executed to achieve that goal. The U.N. is also deeply anti-Israel and pro-muslim, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. The Norway mass murder serves practically every U.N. agenda simultaneously. It really is spooky to see how all of this stuff is connected, and you don't need to dig down very far at all to find these connections.
Which will segue into my next post. Why in the hell haven't we withdrawn and evicted the U.N. from American soil . . . ?
I hope this tidbit of info helps.
From Infowars, interview with Jim Marrs:




J. Croft 

³ The few who understand the system , will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that therewill be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting thatthe system is inimical [Injurious] to their best interests. ´
- Rothschild Brothers of London communiqué to New York June 25, 1863
Anders Behring Breivek launched a one-man wave of terror in Oslo, Norway, blowing up a governmentbuilding and then assaulting children at a playground.
Why?I mean, look at him, he looks about as well adjusted as anyone, all preppy and conservative andNorwegian. Usually the kind of person who'd open up on a bunch of people... children... have more thana few screws loose, smells like cat piss, unwashed, unkempt, lives in mommy's basement if nothomeless.Anders Behring Breivek defies that stereotype as well as defying any kind of sense.He wrote a e-book titled 2083, which is basically a 1500 page bout of grandiosity, misplacedromanticism about the Templars, a fact filled anti-immigration screed rather lengthy and as methodically written as his attack... then why attack Norwegian children and a government building?
Wouldn't he have served his purpose better by turning his weapons onto a mosque? Or the leaders of his political enemies, or their enforcers-anyone but children and a government building?
I mean, youwant to do something memorably symbolic to rally round your opposition to your country and culturebeing swamped by your government's policies you don't do it in a manner that not only encouragessupport for the immigrants you're against, it ratchets up more government repression. He even brags about what he got and how he got it so that any true Norwegian patriots... or American patriots for thatmatter... will be profiled all the more aggressively.  Looking at his Facebook page he is the Director at a geofarm named after himself used as a incomesource and cover to acquire fertilizer for explosives, so he's a intelligent businessman. Breivek majored in finance with a minor in religion. Facebook lists him as a Christian conservative.He had previous firearms experience as a hunter. Norway is largely rugged, rural and hunting is verypopular and although weapons like the AR family are forbidden a 'hunting rifle' like the Mini-14  isn't, though you need a permit and certification. It's admittedly an underrated rifle; he picked up 30 magazines for the weapon which would explain the high body count of defenseless children.  A political conservative businessman takes several years to prepare to blow up a government buildingand murder a bunch of defenseless children for his cause-which sinks it. No sense at all.
NOW this guy makes sense! Breivek is afreemason-which would fit fine with his views and being a businessman . I say Breivek makes sense now becausethe freemasons are the most dangerousterrorist organization on Earth. Over thecenturies they have seduced and turnedthe powerful, the successful, theconnected against us all.Freemasonry is a power cult with occultundertones and origins that is extremelyhierarchial. At the lower levels it is a good ol' boys club whose members are yourlocal politicians, police, businessmen.The freemasons are secretive; theirmeetings are not publicized, they takeoaths of secrecy pledging death forrevealing their secrets.Most freemasons never progress beyond what's known as the Blue Lodge, whichare those good ol' boys who run local andstate governments and own the one orthree local businesses allowed to thrivewhile everyone else is driven out of business.Some of course show more promise, andrise in the ranks to become far morepowerful. The good ol' boys club on anational scale.America was founded by freemasons as the new atlantis written about so prophetically by Sir FrancisBacon. Or was it the plan?
93: FREEMASONIC NUMBER AND OTHER OCCULTIC INTERSECTIONSThe freemasons use a lot of arcane symbology. The enemy is very big on numerology because they feelthey derive power from it, which maybe they do if you go you'll find outNASA considers every rocket launch as a occultic ritual where they dont launch unless the numbers andstars are right. I take the following from Revelation 911 about occultic numerology:
Rest at the link:


I suppose they needed someone to beat up and wreck their life, and this woman was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

You'll note they like to target mainstream Americans-people who won't physically retaliate nor have the connections to be avenged. They rely on the very system that tyrannizes them.

Since the problem is obvious, so are the solutions.

“I just felt myself flying across the room. I thought I was going to die,” Robin remembers. “I was flying from D.C. back home to New York. I got to the [Transportation Security Administration] TSA screening and they X-rayed my bag, and they said, ‘Oh, she’s got a bottle.’ I said, ‘Oh, that’s just my contact lens solution. Feel free to throw it out,’ and then they took me to the secondary screening area. The officer came from behind, picked me up and threw me across the room, into another passenger and into a metal chair. And then he took my arm, and he started twisting it around until I felt it breaking. And I go, ‘Oh, my God, you’re breaking my arm.’ Then he picked me up, threw me against a metal table. There were three officers beating me up. There were two holding me down while he smashed my head into a table. I didn’t know who was beating me up or why. I just kept saying, ‘Get off of me, get off of me, get off of me.’ He gave me a concussion from hitting my head against the table. It’s a permanent traumatic brain injury.
“I used to be pretty intelligent. I used to pride myself on my ability to write. Now, I don’t remember, and it’s embarrassing,” Robin says. “Going to the airport now, I’m afraid of being beat up by security again. It scares me to death.”
“This just seems crazy to me. You had a bottle of contact solution?” Dr. Phil asks Robin.
“Yes,” she says.
“What did you say? Did you make a threat?” Dr. Phil asks.
“No. I said, ‘Oh, that’s my contact lens solution. Feel free to throw it out.’”
“Come on, that doesn’t make sense. What happened? Did you get frustrated? Did you get irritated? Were they rude to you?” Dr. Phil asks.
As the security footage plays, Dr. Phil says, “Something that bothers me about this is if you look at this whole tape, before he throws you to the ground, it looks to me like he’s getting agitated. He’s back behind you, he’s not even talking to you, but he’s throwing his hands up in the air, he’s doing air quotes to the police, he starts to get into an agitated posture, but he wasn’t even talking to you. Why is that? Do you have any sense of why that happened?”
“I have no idea,” Robin says.
Dr. Phil replays a portion of the footage where Robin was thrown into another woman and hit the floor. “What were they saying to you at the time?” he asks.
“They weren’t saying anything while they were beating me. I didn’t even know I was being beat up at first. I kind of felt myself flying across the room and then all of a sudden I’m on the floor, and I’m looking up, and I’m like, ‘Oh, my God, I’m getting beaten up!’” Robin says. “I didn’t see it coming.”
Dr. Phil takes a closer look at where Robin says the officers smashed her head into the table.