Image via Wikipedia
Since 9/11, there’ve been 20 reported attempts by terrorists to attack America. All 20 attempts have been foiled. Three genuine attempts at terrorism were foiled by private citizens. Seventeen were foiled by the FBI and law enforcement.
But Judge Andrew Napolitano claims that the seventeen plots foiled by the FBI and Homeland Security were actually initiated by the FBI and/or other governmental agencies. I.e., the FBI would search for young American Muslim men who were angry and isolated. In a “sting” operation, the FBI would then entice the angry young Muslim to enter into a plot to commit some terroristic act against America. Not realizing they were dealing with the FBI, the “angry young men,” would cooperate in the plot. Then, just before the terrorist act actually took place, the FBI would swarm in to arrest the would-be “terrorist”–and claim credit for having foiled another terrorist plot against the U.S..
In fact, these 17 terror attacks were just as scripted as a Hollywood movie and no more real than a James Bond story. But the American people would be suitably impressed by this fiction, and would therefore come to respect the gov-co in general and the FBI in particular. Thank God the FBI was here to protect us, hmm?
It’s arguable that the TSA screenings that we currently endure in our airports are largely based on the existence of 9/11 (which was a gov-co sanctioned attack) and the 20 subsequent terror attacks–3 of which were genuine and stopped by private citizens and 17 of which were initiated by our own government. We might reasonably ask, How much airport security do we need in this country if 85% of the terror attacks since 9/11 were initiated by our own government? If we want to really keep our airlines safe, maybe we should pass laws that keep government employees away from the airports and airplanes. We might reasonably conclude that “terrorism” is fundamentally a lie fostered by our own government for the purpose of enhancing governmental powers and subjecting Americans to real despotism (terrorism) committed by our own government.
This is simply more evidence that the vast majority of real “terrorists” are located in Washington DC. The principle enemy to American freedom’s is not Al Caida, but our own gov-co.
If it’s true that the only 3 real “terror” attacks were foiled by private citizens, and 17 were initiated by our own government, why do we need “Homeland Security”? It appears that We the People may be able to handle the alleged threats of terrorism better without, rather than with, government assistance.
This story is just another evidence of our government’s propensity to lie. More, the story is evidence of our own government’s war against the American people, our freedoms and our Liberty. America’s principle enemy is our own government.
video 00:05:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsiC7dRVpnw&feature=player_embedded
John Johnson
October 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM
The Judge in this Video,
is the same judge that has written Books:
Lies the Government Told You
Constitutional Chaos:
What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws
The Constitution in Exile:
How the Federal Government Has Seized Power
by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land
What is the Solution,
to government that Lies?
Next time you are at the Ballot Box,
Next time you are in the Jury Box,
Remember,
the federal gov,
Lies.
Their Suits are Impressive.
Their words Sound so true.
They look so Serious and respectable,
Like they would never tell a Lie;
Remember what Judge Napalatano says,
the federal gov,
Lies.
.
Charles
October 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM
Nobody foiled the guy who flew his Cessna into the IRS building a couple years back. That happened in Texas, as I recall. It’s interesting that a citizen took on the government outside the construct of government sponsored terrorism, and the media effectively ignored it.
Dom Mastroserio not (DOM MASTROSERIO)
October 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM
I’m not often prone to be a fastidious fuss-pot or frivolous fool about attempting to correct what I’ve learned to be erroneous word usage (hey, they could be intentional malapropisms as far as I know!) in others but since I, an obscure person who doesn’t even run a blog, was corrected in my own mis-use of the words “principle” and “principal” (two weeks ago) by a nice person offended by hearing me make that mistake in vocabulary, I felt tentatively OK in correcting you, Mr. Adask about those words because you do run a blog I admire and respect.
This is what I learned from a definition-sensitive stranger (two weeks ago) concerning the words “principle” and “principal”…and I’ve looked both up in various lexicons of English English and American English to verify that I wasn’t being led astray by that awful vocabulary-pedant who corrected me…and I will paraphrase (why should I dutifully cite when I’m learning to apply their knowledge?) those dictionaries:
The noun “principle” is a primary definition upon which a core concept or system is based whereas the adjective “principal” denotes the generally recognized primary status of someone, something or some idea…here are two examples to illustrate my take on them:
“One juror based his verdict of guilty upon the PRINCIPLE of Divine Free Choice whereas his co-jurors based theirs on the scientific determinist theory of genetics.”
“Who the conspirators to assassinate John F. Kennedy were can be logically inferred from unexplained evidence pointing to suspicious pre-and-post-assassination acts of the highest officials in the federal government; one of whose PRINCIPAL actors at the time was vice-president Lyndon B. Johnson.”
In which case let me throw this dubious one out there for sport…
“The principal principles of morality are based on The Ten Commandments.”
Enough! For now I gotta admit that this word correcting business has, sadly, made me feel much like a pedant myself, therefore I doubt I’ll do it again.
Or if you like, just ignore this, my comment, as merely an uncharacteristic public outburst of Aunt Grundy-ism of (DOM MASTROSERIO), not Dom Mastroserio.