The Only Truly Compliant, Submissive Citizen In A Police State Is A Dead One

shutterstock.com

“Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.”— “‘Comply or Die’ policing must stop, Daily KOS

Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered, and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly, and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough.

Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot, and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough.

And Americans of every age and skin color are being taught the painful lesson that the only truly compliant, submissive, and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry. In turn, Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question.

Franklin Graham, the heir to Billy Graham’s evangelical empire, offered up this “simple” piece of advice for “Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and everybody else” hoping to survive an encounter with the police:

Most police shootings can be avoided. It comes down to respect for authority and obedience. If a police officer tells you to stop, you stop. If a police officer tells you to put your hands in the air, you put your hands in the air. If a police officer tells you to lay down face first with your hands behind your back, you lay down face first with your hands behind your back. It’s as simple as that. Even if you think the police officer is wrong—YOU OBEY.

Clearly, Graham’s message resonated with a core group of Americans: almost 200,000 individuals “liked” the message on Facebook, with an astounding 83,000 fans sharing his words of advice with their own friends, none of whom seem to recall that Jesus Christ, whom they claim to follow and model their lives after, not only stood up to the police state of his day but was put to death for it.

It’s not just mainstream evangelicals who have been brainwashed into believing that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state. In the wake of a grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer responsible for the choking death of Eric Garner, Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, declared:

“We have to teach our children, our sons and our daughters, no matter what they look like, to respect New York City police officers, teach them to comply with New York City police officers even if they think it’s unjust.”

Similarly, Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:

If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re in the right, it doesn’t matter if a cop is in the wrong, and it doesn’t matter if you’re being treated with less than the respect you deserve. If you want to emerge from a police encounter with your life and body intact, then you’d better comply, submit, obey orders, respect authority, and generally do whatever a cop tells you to do.

In this way, the old police motto to “protect and serve” has become “comply or die.” As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and in my forthcoming book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the unfortunate, misguided, perverse message being beaten, shot, tasered, and slammed into our collective consciousness; and it is regrettably starting to take root.

Despite the growing number of criminal charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers that be, the problems we’re experiencing in terms of police shootings have little to do with rebellion or belligerence or resistance.

Rather, the problem arises when compliance doesn’t happen fast enough to suit the police.

For instance, 15-year-old Jamar Nicholson was shot in the back by police after they spotted him standing next to a friend holding a toy gun. “Officers ordered the boy to drop the weapon multiple times,” reports the Los Angeles Times. “When he didn’t comply, one of the officers opened fire.”

Martese Johnson, a 20-year-old college student, unarmed and in the process of walking away from a bar where he’d just been denied entry for being underage, was tackled by police and had his head slammed to the ground and bloodied, allegedly for being intoxicated, belligerent, and using a fake ID. Johnson, who it turns out was polite, had a legal ID, and was not drunk, survived the encounter after 10 stitches to his head.

And then there was Christopher Lollie, who was tasered, arrested, and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and obstruction of the legal process for refusing to identify himself to police while waiting to pick his children up from their daycare. Footage of the encounter shows Lollie asking, “Why do I have to let you know who I am? I don’t have to let you know who I am if I haven’t broken any laws.” The charges against Lollie were eventually dropped.

Nicholson, Johnson, and Lollie aren’t the only Americans being taught a hard lesson about compliance at the end of a government-issued gun.

World War II veteran John Wrana, 95 years old, dependent on a walker to get around, and a resident of an assisted living center, was rushed by five police officers—one with a Taser and riot shield, others with handguns and a 12-gauge Mossberg pump shotgun—after refusing treatment for a urinary tract infection and brandishing a shoehorn. One of the officers, allegedly fearing for his safety, fired multiple beanbag rounds at Wrana at close range, who bled to death from internal injuries.

James Howard Allen, 74 years old and recovering at home from a surgery, was shot and killed by police who were asked by family members to do a welfare check on him. When police crashed through the man’s back door, they found Allen, perhaps having just awoken and fearing a burglary, armed with a gun.

These shootings and deaths, and many more like them, constitute a drop in the proverbial bucket when it comes to police killing unarmed American citizens; and yet you’d be hard-pressed to find exact numbers for how many unarmed citizens are killed by police every year. Indeed, while police go to great lengths to document how many police are killed in the line of duty, police agencies aren’t actually required to report the number of times police officers engage in homicide. Suffice it to say, however, that the numbers are significantly underreported.

One website estimates that police kill on average three citizens a day in the United States. In 2014, 1100 individuals were killed by police in the U.S. That’s 70 times more than other first-world nations, and almost 20 times more than the number of U.S. troops killed in the same year in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rarely are these officers given more than a slap on the wrist. More often than not, they operate with impunity, are shielded from justice by the governmental bureaucracy, and are granted qualified immunity by the courts.

A recent report by the Justice Department on police shootings in Philadelphia, which boasts the fourth largest police department in the country, found that half of the unarmed people shot by police over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

Now it’s one thing for those who back the police—no matter what the circumstance—to insist that if you just obey a police officer, you’ll be safe. But what happens when compliance isn’t enough?

What happens if you play it safe, comply and do whatever a police officer tells you to do, don’t talk back, don’t threaten, and don’t walk away—in other words, don’t do anything that even hints at resistance—and still, you find yourself staring down the wrong end of a government agent’s gun? After all, the news is riddled with reports of individuals who didn’t resist when confronted by police and still got tasered, tackled, or shot simply because they looked at police in a threatening manner or moved in a way that made an officer “fear” for his safety.

For instance, Levar Jones, pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, was shot after complying with a police officer’s order to retrieve his license. The trooper justified his shooting of the unarmed man by insisting that Jones reached for his license “aggressively.”

What more could Jones or anyone have done to protect himself in that situation? How does a citizen protect himself against a police officer’s tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened?

The short answer is you can’t.

The assurance of safety in exchange for compliance is a false, misguided doctrine that has us headed towards a totalitarian regime the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Rest assured, if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we’ll find ourselves repeating history. However, history also shows us a different path, one that involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.

Indeed, had Christ merely complied with the Roman police state, there would have been no crucifixion and no Christian religion. Had Gandhi meekly fallen in line with the British Empire’s dictates, the Indian people would never have won their independence. Had Martin Luther King Jr. obeyed the laws of his day, there would have been no civil rights movement. And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.

The long answer, therefore, is that we must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.

No matter what path you follow, it will be fraught with peril. America is in the midst of a nervous breakdown, brought about by prolonged exposure to the American police state; and there are few places that are safe anymore.

A good test is this: if you live in a community that has welcomed the trappings of the police state with open arms (surveillance cameras, forced DNA extractions, Stingray devices, red light cameras, private prisons, etc.), all the while allowing its police forces to militarize, weaponize, and operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, then you don’t live in a democratic republic—you live in a microcosm of the American police state.

If you have no real say in how your local law enforcement operates, if the only oversight of police actions is carried out by fellow officers, if any attempt to criticize the police is edited out or not covered by your local newspaper or TV station, drowned out by your fellow citizens, or intimidated into silence by your local police, then you have no recourse when it comes to police abuses.

Finally, if, despite having done nothing wrong, you feel nervous during a police encounter, you fear doing or saying the wrong thing in front of an officer will get you shot, and your local police dress and act like extensions of the military and treat you like a suspect, then it’s safe to say that you are not the one holding the upper hand in the master-servant relationship anymore.

This is the death rattle of the American dream, which was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

U.S. House’s Lone Jew Pens Devastating Letter To Obama Over Israel Position

Facebook/Lee Zeldin

In a recent editorial published on The Journal, New York Rep. Lee Zeldin took Barack Obama to task for his position regarding America’s closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel. Zeldin’s perspective is particularly relevant given his status as the only Jew currently serving in the U.S. Congress.

The military veteran began by pointing out that threats against Israel are also an inherent threat against the U.S.

“If a nation like Iran was to receive nuclear capability,” he wrote, “America’s security would be immediately weakened. That’s why we must do everything possible to stop Iran from ever having nuclear capabilities.”

It is that Iranian threat, Zeldin pointed out, that prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to America to share his concerns in an address before Congress.

During the speech, he explained, Netanyahu affirmed that “he does not oppose an agreement with Iran; he opposes a bad agreement.”

Zeldin echoed Netanyahu’s remarks, writing that a “bad deal with Iran is worse than no deal at all” and lambasting the idea that America would be best served by “making a slew of permanent concessions on our side in return for temporary concessions on the part of Iran.”

It is incumbent upon legislators, he wrote, to “work together to strengthen our relationship with Israel and protect both of our nations against those who want to harm us.”

In his concluding sentence, Zeldin addressed the Obama administration’s reluctance to join in that effort.

“It is my hope,” he stated, “that the Obama administration will start standing with our allies in Israel and stop protecting our enemies.”

Share this article on Facebook if you support Israel.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Pro-Amnesty Rep. Luis Gutiérrez Ran Off Stage By Concerned Patriots

USC Patriots Booing Rep. Gutierrez

Congressman Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., an advocate for Obama’s blanket amnesty, was speaking at a Spanish-only USC event on Saturday when a small crowd began to drown out the larger crowd’s chatter with boos and chants of “U-S-A.”

The emphatic crowd opposed the Spanish-only platform and was visibly outraged by Gutiérrez. The Illinois congressman chose to take no verbal questions from the audience and would only respond to written questions after they had been approved.

Luis Gutierrez

Youtube

Headphones were offered to English-speaking attendees for translations as the entire speech was delivered in Spanish.

After Gutiérrez finished speaking, he promptly fled the stage.

h/t: Gateway Pundit

Share this article on Facebook if you oppose Obama’s blanket illegal amnesty.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The NAACP’s Fomenters Of Fear

Twitter/HuffPost BlackVoices

They just can’t help themselves — and their agenda-driven media enablers never, ever learn.

This week, the NAACP made national front-page headlines with a local press release demanding that the feds investigate the hanging death of a local man in Port Gibson, Miss. Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP Mississippi State Conference, immediately invoked the specter of a “hate crime.” In response, the Obama Justice Department flooded the zone with a whopping 30 federal agents.

News outlets grabbed the bait. USA Today asked ominously, “Was it a lynching?” The discovery of ex-con Otis Byrd’s body swinging from a tree by a bed sheet “brought back unpleasant memories of America’s violent, racially charged past,” the paper’s video reporter asserted. Voice of America similarly intoned, “Mississippi hanging death raises lynching specter.” The Los Angeles Times leaped into the fray with, “Why this story haunts the nation.”

Whoa there, teeth-gnashing Nellies. Didn’t we just recently witness the implosion of an NAACP-incited non-hate crime with the same exact narrative? Why, yes. Yes, we did.

As I reported in January, the group was here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs hyping a so-called “bombing” at the city’s chapter office. Local, state, and federal NAACP leaders, amplified by political and media sympathizers, claimed the alleged hate crime “remind(ed) me of another period” (Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis); “undermines years of progress” (Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee); “harkens to bad old days” (MSNBC); and “evokes memories of civil rights strife” (Time Magazine).

But the allegedly racist perpetrator of the “NAACP bombing” turned out to be a disgruntled client of a now-deceased tax accountant who once worked in the same office complex. The financially troubled suspect had unsuccessfully tried to contact the tax preparer for years to obtain past tax returns. But unbeknownst to the “bomber,” who set off a pathetic improvised explosive device on the opposite side of the NAACP office, the accountant had been sent to prison for bilking other clients — and had passed away several years ago.

Confirming what only a few of us in the media dared to theorize out loud, race had absolutely nothing to do with the wildly inflated and cynically exploited incident in Colorado Springs. Zip, zero, nada.

None of this appears to have chastened the journalists who reflexively empower the NAACP agitators who reflexively cry racism. Just weeks after the not-NAACP bombing, here they are stoking fears of a probably-not-racist-not-lynching. Despite law enforcement reports that Byrd’s hands were unbound, despite warnings from the local sheriff (who happens to be black) not to jump to conclusions, and despite the very real possibility that Byrd committed suicide, the papers and airwaves disseminated Blame Whitey and Blame Righty talking points without thinking twice.

The incident indeed “brought back memories” for me — memories of the embarrassing 1996 media malpractice of former USA Today reporter Gary Fields, who manufactured a purported epidemic of racist church-burnings in the South with 61 hysterical stories. A typical and familiar headline: “Arson at Black Church Echoes Bigotry of the Past.” The NAACP jumped onboard and demanded that then-Attorney General Janet Reno investigate. President Clinton fanned the flames; panels were formed; federal spending programs were passed. But a year later, Fields’ own paper was forced to admit that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Several of the crimes had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the black churches were in fact white churches; and the Chicken Littles had obscured numerous complex motives including mental illness, vandalism, and concealment of theft.

Same old, same old. Then, as now, for publicity and profit, the race hustlers stoke the very societal divisiveness they claim to abhor — and knee-jerk journalists suffering institutional amnesia aid and abet them.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

New Yorker Under Fire For Describing Ted Cruz With Racist Term

Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Soon after he became the first 2016 presidential hopeful to formally announce his candidacy, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz became the subject of numerous media reports. One such article, penned by the New Yorker’s John Cassidy, described the Tea Party favorite as he believes “many Americans” see him.

Cruz “is the uppity loudmouth who, in the fall of 2013, less than a year into his first term as a senator, helped bring the federal government to a halt.”

Of course, many Americans believe the term ‘uppity’ has racial connotations and using it against the Hispanic Cruz is tantamount to a slur.

After radio host Rush Limbaugh referred to the “uppity-ness” of Michelle Obama following her chilly reception at a NASCAR event, The Wire published an article titled: “Yep, ‘Uppity’ Is Racist.”

The entire piece served as an effort to support the headline’s claim while disparaging Limbaugh and those who supported him. Despite the fact that the author’s most reliable source appeared to be an entry on the website Urban Dictionary that claims the word ‘uppity’ is “often followed by the n-word,” a certain segment of the population obviously believes the term is steeped in racial discrimination.

When the word was used against Cruz, many of the same claims levied against Limbaugh were rehashed to target Cassidy.

Twitter

Twitter

As a result, the New Yorker removed the offending word and included an apology by the author that the Washington Post described as a “sorry-if-anyone-took-offense formulation.”

Cassidy explained that he relied on a dictionary definition of the word, admitting it “also has some disturbing historical connotations that I overlooked, and in applying it to a Latino politician, I goofed.”

The closing line, criticized by the Post, included a caveat.

“If I gave any offense, however inadvertently, I am sorry,” he wrote.

Do you believe Cassidy’s use of the term ‘uppity’ was inappropriate? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom