Tom Usher wrote or added | We know damn well the police were involved in the Black Bloc and that other police were ordered not to touch the Black Bloc while the Black Bloc smashed and burned private and public property but those uniformed and un-uniformed police were ordered without cause to beat up and to arrest the innocent. Wow, are those frontline cops ever stupid to follow such orders — they really are.
This is not just to justify a large budget but to justify the plutocrats (private banksters) who actually own and control those police departments. This is to inform the people, including you, that they and you have no say and will conform. This is the stuff of which civil wars are made.
The plutocrats believe that they now have the technology to do anything they want to the people no matter what the people might come together to do. Well, if the people wanted to pull the plugs on the plutocrats, the people could do that. The problem with that though is that the plutocrats are capable of instantly ordering massive death and destruction without blinking. The people aren't as insane as the plutocrats, but they can be driven to it.
The plutocrats believe they have the pulse of the people's anger and just how much the plutocrats can push them before triggering a reaction and just how large that reaction might become. This is why Obama and the others are warning everyone that they will shut down the Internet used by the general population.
There is another Internet that would keep running for the Pentagon and all the Federal "enforcement" agencies. The top telecoms would follow orders to shut off phones too. The Pentagon would also jam all other communication attempts by the general public. This would leave the people without the ability to share information the way they can now. Even now though, the communications are spied on (illegally). The NSA is still listening to everything via their supercomputers even though they shouldn't be doing that. Only the plutocrats are to have privacy.
However, when things start to become unsettled enough, the plutocrats would fall apart soon enough. They'd have their internal struggles that would result in assassinations, etc. They are far from immune to their own intrigues.
This has all been prima facie evidence of agents provocateurs working within the utterly stupid violent anarchist groups on behalf of the planners of world plutocratic tyranny. There's no doubt about it. The G20 and G8 leaders and those who give them their ultimate orders could stop this sort of thing in an instant. They don't want to stop it. They want the peaceful protesters to shut up and to be too afraid to go out of their houses except to do exactly what those plutocrats want. Those plutocrats want to do away with national governments and replace everything with their corporations where money votes and where they decide who has money and who starves.
Even the massive oil leak is part of this. They are letting it leak. They could have stopped it. They are making this big deal out of that if they stop it, a new leak could start. Well, then why did they have a cutoff device down there in the first place?
If the leak goes on long enough, the whole regions economy will be destroyed except for oil drilling. How many millions of people will have lost how much? How many will be out of work? How many will be homeless? How many will become sick? How many children will miss their educations? They'll all have to move, but to where? What place can absorb them and afford it right now, thanks to the banksters?
This is all part of the plan to weaken and weaken and weaken the common, compassionate, less greedy, less violent people — the better people — so that the inferior ones, the ones whose moral compasses are broken, the sociopaths, the hyper greedy and selfish and stone-cold-hearted can just act more and more as feudal lords over the rest.
Well, I have news for them. They are going to fail and fall and fall hard. They are going to be ground into dust. There are forces at work beyond their wildest imaginations, forces that those plutocrats can't touch or see.
The wrath will come, and it won't be on the plutocrats' terms.
It's time to hold people to account. Canada needs to investigate and to come clean. Right now, Canada is a lackey. There needs to be a thorough and independent investigation into this. People as high as the chain goes need instantly and permanently to be replaced by their arch nemeses. It's either that or things continue getting darker and darker and darker until all Hell breaks loose, which it otherwise will.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)