Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 9, 2022 - Dan Bidondi Show

01:55:18

The American Police State-To Protect & Serve The New World Order (Documentary)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- If you're receiving this transmission, you are the resistance.
	Declaring war on the New World Order.
	TruthRadioShow.com Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
	Good evening, my fellow Americans.
	We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations.
	Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.
	American makers of plowshares could, With time, and as required, make swords as well.
	But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.
	We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
	Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.
	Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.
	The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
	We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.
	Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved.
	So is the very structure of our society.
	In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
	The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
	We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
	We should take nothing for granted Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
	We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.
	We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
	Thank you.
	American Police State, to protect and serve the New World Order.
	Thank you.
	Hi, my name is Dan Bedandi, filmmaker and radio talk show host of Truth Radio, and welcome to the American Police State.
	Years ago, you had officer friendly in blue, who people felt safe and secure to be around.
	Now today, thanks to the government federalization and the police departments, these officers are dressed in black, like militant uniforms, Gestapo Storm Trooper uniforms, and instills fear and intimidation upon the American people.
	Now, all cops are not corrupt, and I want to express this vividly to the American people.
	I got friends and I got family who are honest, hard-working police officers.
	And not all police officers are corrupt.
	In this film, we're going to expose the federal government's plans to federalize our local police departments.
	In this documentary, you're going to learn how this federal government is now training our local law enforcement agencies around the country that our founding fathers were terrorists.
	You'll also learn how the federal government is now defining the normal American citizen as a domestic terrorist and a potential threat that is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than an al-Qaeda.
	Now this has been done by distributing such reports as the MIAC report, the Department of Homeland Security's report on right-wing extremism, and many other documents as we'll cover along through this documentary.
	We also encourage you, not just to take our word for it, but to verify all the documents and all the claims stated throughout this video.
	Get this information viral.
	I want you, and I encourage you, to make copies of this film, give them to your families, members of church, if you have a neighbor that's a police officer, definitely give it to them.
	And we want to get this information viral, because this is a very important threat to us as American citizens, and for our civil liberties and our security as well.
	And Benjamin Franklin quoted, anyone who gives up your civil liberties for security, you don't deserve either one of them.
	And that's going to be very relevant to what we're going to cover today in this film.
	The fear that an overbearing centralized government could militarily take over the individual states which make up our nation is far from new.
	Unknown to most Americans, our founding fathers were more concerned with a federal takeover of the free states than of a foreign invasion.
	These warnings have been repeated by politicians all throughout our nation's history, from George Washington and James Madison, to Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul.
	Speaking about the benefits of a union, George Washington had this to say in his farewell address of 1796.
	The people must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter.
	Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
	In this sense, it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop for your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear you the preservation of the other.
	As George Washington put it, an overgrown military establishment is inauspicious to the liberty of the people, and are even regarded as hostile to the American people.
	This is the true reason for the writing of the Second Amendment, as stated by George Washington.
	They would be signals of general alarm.
	Every government would espouse the common cause.
	encroachments of the federal governments on the authority of the state governments would not excite the opposition of a single state or of a few states only.
	They would be signals of general alarm.
	Every government would espouse the common cause.
	A correspondence would be opened.
	Plans of resistance would be concerted.
	One sphere would animate and conduct the whole.
	The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign yoke.
	And unless the the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced.
	The same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.
	But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?
	The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the state governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.
	The The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.
	That the people and the states should, for a sufficient period of time, Elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both.
	The traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment.
	That the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm.
	and continue to supply the materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
	Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed, and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government.
	Still, it would not be going too far to say that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
	These warnings were given for a reason.
	The merging of the federal military and the police of the individual states will result in nothing more than a military takeover of the states, as prophesied by the Founding Fathers and previous presidents.
	questions.
	These warnings and prophecies, as will be seen in our film, have come to fruition.
	Our once free nation, comprised of individual and sovereign states, have been federalized more and more as our individual and states' rights are usurped by the federal government through military power.
	We have become a police state.
	The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed to limit the federal government from using military agencies to carry out normal law enforcement activities.
	The idea was to protect the individual states from a federalized military takeover of the states, as feared by our founders.
	However, throughout the past several decades, we have seen a push for the federal government to take over the states and end our constitutional rights.
	When Colonel Oliver North was questioned during the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, the Congress mentioned such a plan to suspend the United States Constitution, known as Rex 84.
	The Congressman, however, was blocked from getting further into the issue.
	When Reagan was elected to the presidency, he installed Louis Giafrida as head of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
	Giafrida was an old, cold warrior from Reagan's California days whose specialty was suppression of unrest and dissent.
	Giafrida, North, and George Bush began to turn FEMA into an instrument of domestic anti-terrorism.
	You're dealing with a group of people in the Reagan administration who equated political dissent with treason, and who cannot differentiate between emergency procedures, which I think everyone agrees are necessary, and suppressing political dissent.
	And with North and Poindexter and Casey, you had a group of people who saw Americans who disagreed with them as the enemy.
	Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, Will you not decide at one time to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
	Mr. Chairman?
	I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area, so may I request that you not touch upon that, sir?
	I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami Papers and several others that there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of an emergency that would suspend the American Constitution.
	And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was the area in which he had worked.
	May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage?
	If we wish to get into this on certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.
	And tragically, the only member who got close was Jack Brooks, and he was stopped by the term.
	The plans to suspend the Constitution during a national emergency or even a state emergency is not impossible.
	It has been done before.
	It is actually being calmly admitted by our own military.
	According to the Army Times of September 30th, 2008, it said, Beginning October 1st, for 12 months, the 1st B.C.T.
	will be under the day-to-day control of the U.S.
	Army North, the Army Service Component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man-made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
	The report went on saying, "...it is not the first time an active duty unit has been tapped to help at home.
	In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas."
	What they did not mention, however, is that the army was actually going from home to home illegally confiscating legally owned guns from citizens who lived in dry land, as reported by ABC News.
	That includes New Orleans, where today authorities stepped up their efforts to empty the city Bob Woodruff is there again tonight with an extraordinary human drama unfolding.
	Bob?
	That's true, Elizabeth, and good evening from New Orleans.
	Here, the police and the National Guard find themselves in a very difficult position tonight to try to carry out an order to force people from the city without actually using force.
	Today in New Orleans, they got a lot tougher on the holdouts.
	Not only the flooded areas, but New Orleans' driest and wealthiest neighborhoods, too.
	The police and National Guard going street-by-street, house-to-house.
	We need to make sure, too, that whenever we knock on doors, people refuse to leave.
	We need to make a note, call it in.
	They say there are no orders to use force, just strong persuasion, sometimes entering open houses with guns drawn, and instructions to disarm anyone inside.
	You said guns?
	Guns will be taken.
	No one will be able to be armed.
	We will take all the weapons.
	That happened today in this wealthy neighborhood where homeowners had armed themselves to protect their mansions.
	Residents were handcuffed on the ground.
	In the end, police took their weapons but let them stay in their homes.
	They were a little bit threatened because our weapons were bigger than their weapons.
	For many of the police and guard troops, it is an uncomfortable job to do this in an American city.
	This guard unit occupied a church, using it as a base camp.
	They had to leave a note because they could not get hold of the pastor to get permission.
	It is, it is surreal.
	Yeah, you just never, you never expect to do this in your own country.
	Chris Montgomery says he'd rather be in Iraq than patrolling American neighborhoods.
	Walking up and down these streets, you don't, you don't want to think about the stuff that you're gonna have to do.
	Somebody pops around the corner.
	Let me shoot an American.
	This caused outrage from constitutionalists nationwide, especially from Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes.
	Rhodes was interviewed by Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly to talk about the illegal confiscation of guns.
	The fact of the following segment tonight, last night we interviewed Mark Potak from the Southern Poverty Law Center and he spotlighted a right-wing group called the Oath Keepers that he feels may become dangerous.
	But the reality about the group is that what it's really about is the fear that martial law is about to be imposed.
	That Americans are about to be herded into concentration camps.
	That foreign troops are going to be put down on American soil.
	Joining us now from Washington, Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, who served as a paratrooper in the Army.
	Tell us about your group, first of all, before we get into the ideology of it.
	How many people are in the Oath Keepers, and do you have to be a police officer, a law enforcement officer, and an ex-military?
	What do you have to be?
	Well, if you're going to be a full member, you have to be either current service or prior service, military, police, or firefighters.
	But we also let average citizens come in as associate members to support our mission.
	And we have about 15,000 on our forum.
	About 15,000 on our forums.
	They're not all actual members, about 6,000 dues-paying members.
	Okay, how much is the dues to get in there?
	Just a $30 donation.
	This covers the cost of processing the paperwork.
	You bet.
	And you started this about a year ago.
	Are you associated with the Tea Party at any level?
	Well, I've been to a lot of Tea Party events.
	We've spoken at quite a few of them, and I'm on the planning committee for the one on 9-11 this next September.
	So, marchondc.org.
	But, you know, we like the Tea Party movement.
	We think it's great.
	It's a good revitalization of core Americanism and core constitutionalism.
	Okay, so full members in the Oath Keepers have to have a military or police background.
	Now, I'm going to read you something from your website.
	Firefighters.
	We will not obey unconstitutional and thus illegal and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or place them under martial law.
	Well, who's going to try to disarm people and place them under martial law?
	I mean, why would that even be something you would be discussing?
	Well, it happened as recently as Katrina.
	You probably have seen the videos there of an old lady being tackled in her kitchen and disarmed with her revolver, and there was house-to-house searches for firearms, and you had the police chief declaring that no one would be allowed to have weapons or take all the guns, and they did.
	So they disarmed Americans over some bad weather, as though the bad weather suspended the Second Amendment.
	So that's the most recent Exactly.
	But it was a little bit more than that.
	I mean, the local authorities in New Orleans could not control what was going on in the city.
	And you had looters who were armed going in and stealing things.
	And this directive was... It wasn't just looters they were disarming.
	They disarmed average American people.
	Just average Americans.
	No, they had disarmed everybody, they basically said.
	There's not going to be any guns in the city, and we're going to take them all, because we're in a state of emergency.
	But that's after a hurricane wipes out the city, so I'm not sure.
	But let me ask you this.
	Where's that in the Constitution?
	It says that bad weather suspends the Constitution.
	It's not a matter of bad weather.
	It's a matter of can't control the city.
	If a mayor of a city, if a mayor of a city or a governor of a state, has a state of emergency, alright?
	And you hear that all the time.
	I'm going to put a state of emergency here.
	And we have a city that's out of control, like we had in the 60s, and you remember some of those riots, I'm sure.
	And they say, you know, we're going to pose a curfew.
	You can't go out after 11 o'clock.
	You can't have a gun out in public.
	You can't do this.
	You can't assemble.
	And, you know, because we have an out-of-control situation.
	You're telling me that you're going to tell your people not to obey those laws?
	I would say that disarming an average law-abiding citizen, a blanket like that... No state of emergency!
	I'm just talking state of emergency.
	Call it what you want, it's still unconstitutional.
	That's a pretty extreme position.
	Alright, let me ask you about this.
	You also say, we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our troops.
	What does that mean?
	That means that there is a thought in the minds of some in the military that their oath is just to the president.
	And they don't understand that their oath is first and foremost to the Constitution.
	And so we have to make sure they understand that.
	The Commander-in-Chief is the president by our Constitution.
	If he issues an order, are you telling people not to obey the order if they don't like it?
	If it's unconstitutional, yes.
	In whose opinion?
	The individual soldier?
	So each soldier makes up his mind whether the order he's given is constitutional or not?
	What were the Nazis told at Nuremberg that disobeying orders was no excuse, no defense?
	They have an individual obligation.
	And this is well established in military law.
	There's an individual obligation.
	I know military law, and there are things in there that if a guy says, you have to kill those civilians, you say, no we don't.
	But I'm saying in a general term, I don't think you can have a military or a police force if you have each officer and soldier and marine saying, we'll obey what order we want because we don't think it's constitutional.
	That seems to be what you're putting out there.
	I'll give you the last word on it.
	No, here's the thing, Bill, is that there's a presumption that orders are lawful.
	And so it's a heavy burden to me.
	But if you obey an unlawful order, you can also be in trouble.
	And so they're not going to just go do this lightly.
	They'll do it when it's most serious.
	Because it's serious repercussions if you disobey a lawful order.
	But you can be tried and convicted for disobeying, for obeying an unlawful one, too.
	If it's clearly unlawful, I got it.
	But if it's a matter of interpretation, you could have anarchy easily.
	But Mr. Rose, we appreciate you saying that.
	You'll have guys who will be at risk of court martial.
	They're not going to do that because they're at risk of court martial.
	They'll only do it when it's fully serious.
	Bill O'Reilly called Rhodes' view extreme simply by stating the fact that a state of emergency does not supersede the Constitution.
	And then, conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly even defended his remarks about the suspension of constitutional rights, citing Abraham Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.
	Now, the letter is Tessa Gonzales, Tampa, Florida.
	Bill, I side with the Oath Keepers against you.
	There is no extenuating circumstance that trumps the Constitution.
	You are not disagreeing with me, Tessa.
	That's what I say.
	But we have a system to uphold the Constitution.
	It is called the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court.
	The Oath Keepers are not the system.
	William Carino, Cocoa, Florida.
	I have a right to protect my property with a gun.
	A state of emergency does not suspend that right.
	Yes, it does, William.
	During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
	The U.S.
	government has a right, constitutionally, to take actions in states of emergency.
	The Supreme Court has a right to stop it if they deem it wrong.
	That is our system.
	Susie Romans, Colorado Springs.
	The Oath Keeper guy was correct in asking why a hurricane would cause a disarming of law-abiding citizens.
	I agree, Susie.
	It is a valid question.
	I'm not saying the city of New Orleans was right in disarming the folks, but it was legal, unless a court overruled it.
	What Bill failed to mention, however, is that the Habeas Corpus Clause, which states, quote, "...the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it," is found in Article 1, which deals with the legislative branch, and nowhere in Article 2, which deals with the which deals with the legislative branch, and nowhere in Article 2, which deals with the executive branch, i.e. the president, does it say that the president can legally suspend
	It is clear that Abraham Lincoln did in fact violate the Constitution and break the law when he issued his famous Proclamation of 1862, which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. - Yes.
	In 2006, George W. Bush and the Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which also suspended habeas corpus for quote, enemy combatants.
	And just recently, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have both introduced the infamous Enemy Belligerence Act, which would give the President complete dictatorial power to imprison anyone, including U.S.
	American citizens, and detain them indefinitely for, quote, such matters that the President considers appropriate.
	Suspending the writs of habeas corpus is just one instance in which the executive branch violates the Constitution.
	When American citizens violate the Constitution, they're called criminals.
	But for some reason, when the federal government violates the Constitution, they get re-elected with increases in their salary.
	As shown earlier, the patrolling of streets with illegal checkpoints and illegal gun confiscation by federal authorities, whether it be the Transportation Security Administration or TSA, Or the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, which are both branches of the Department of Homeland Security.
	Or the Marine Corps.
	These are all blatant usurpations of power by the federal government, and more importantly, they are illegal acts on behalf of the federal government.
	In order to fully understand this, we must go back and understand three very important pieces of legislation.
	The Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the John Warner Defense Act of 2006.
	Reporter Paul Joseph Watson explained.
	Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, "...whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or of the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years or both."
	Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress, then signed into law by then-President George Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, quote,
	The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any state of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or oppose or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
	However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by H.R.
	4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
	This reverted the law back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807.
	The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.
	For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that 1.
	So hinders the execution of the laws of that state and of the United States within the state.
	that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that state are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.
	Or two, opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
	In any situation covered by Clause 1, the state shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the law secured by the Constitution.
	It is clear that instances in which the branches of the Department of Homeland Security, including the TSA or ICE, or members of the federal military, carry out everyday police duties, or where the federal government sets up checkpoints for all citizens to go through to carry out their everyday lives, are completely unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
	Most Americans are familiar with the fiasco surrounding the TSA with the airports.
	People were literally having their genitals groped by workers who didn't even change their own gloves in between screenings.
	The ACLU had even received over 1,000 complaints from travelers describing their case in graphic detail.
	These molestations occurred when people refused to put themselves through the naked body scanners, which according to many scientists are between 20 and 50 times more dangerous regarding high doses of radiation than first admitted by the federal government.
	The scans of our naked bodies were even being stored, although the federal government initially told us they were being discarded immediately after being produced.
	Some have even already been leaked.
	The End
	There are hundreds of reports of the TSA abusing passengers, as CBS reported.
	11.
	...in reality enforced by the Transportation Security Administration, the DSA.
	But as CBS2 investigator Pam Zechman reports, thousands of travelers have complained that some of these screenings can become abusive, even X-rated.
	For arguing with a TSA agent, this woman winds up being slammed to the floor.
	She's filed a lawsuit.
	I kept begging them over and over again, get off of me, get off of me, get off of me, and they wouldn't stop.
	And it wasn't enough for another woman to show TSA agents nipple rings that set off a metal detector.
	The agents forced her to take them out.
	I had to get the pliers.
	Pull it apart.
	Here in Chicago, we watched as passengers like this man are subjected to exhaustive security checks.
	He's padded down, his wheelchair is examined, and his hands are swabbed, all in public view, in a see-through room at the security checkpoint.
	And he's not alone.
	It's humiliation.
	71-year-old Robert Perry was also taken to a room like this by a TSA agent when his artificial knee set off the metal detector.
	He yelled at me, no, get the belt off.
	I told you to get the belt off.
	So I took the belt off.
	He ran his hands down to her and pulled the pants down.
	They went down around my ankles.
	At that point, Perry was standing in his underwear in public view.
	He asked to see a supervisor.
	That made things worse.
	She was yelling, I have power!
	I have power!
	I have power!
	The power to stop him from flying to Florida with his wife that day to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.
	Make you feel like you have no rights.
	Perry says he always alerts TSA agents about his metal knee and wonders why they can't just check his leg.
	If somebody told me that I was going to save the people on the airplane by taking my pants off out in public, I wouldn't mind doing it.
	But this was not necessary.
	TSA officials say that when the metal detector goes off, their agents must resolve what caused the alarm.
	But experts say it's important to use common sense when balancing security with customer service.
	Carlos Villarreal is the former director of security for the Sears Tower.
	He says proper training is crucial.
	When you're wanting somebody, and you can identify which point or which part of their body set off the alarm, that should be sufficient to clear a person.
	But all too often, it's not sufficient for 16-year-old Michael Angone.
	She frequently flies as a member of the Chicago Children's Choir.
	I've had to completely take my pants off and show them, like, my entire leg before.
	As a baby, Angone was diagnosed with cancer.
	Her parents, Chicago police officers, had to have her leg amputated.
	She always warns TSA security agents that her prosthetic leg will set off the metal detector, but many insist on doing an embarrassing full-body pat-down.
	Then I feel like I'm being felt up in public.
	What's the reason for all the feeling up?
	You know, the groping at the back of the neck, the chest, underneath the bra, all the groping on her body, her buttocks.
	We asked the TSA those questions, but got no answers.
	The key word here is reasonable, and they've gone off the track.
	They're not reasonable.
	The TSA did not answer our questions on the Angone and Perry cases, but the agency has announced that soon, passengers who set off an alarm that cannot be resolved will have a choice.
	Agree to a physical pat-down, or what some believe is an even worse invasion of privacy.
	Soon, O'Hare will get its first advanced digital x-ray machine.
	It allows TSA agents to see through clothes and discover any hidden weapons.
	Critics liken it to a virtual strip search.
	A TSA spokesman said that out of 2 billion passengers screened since 9-11, there's only been 110,000 complaints.
	As a result of the nipple ring case, the TSA did change its procedures regarding body piercings.
	Robyn Ann.
	An airline pilot who lives in the Sacramento area posted video on the internet to expose what he believes are flaws in the nation's airport security.
	And he's being punished by the feds as a result.
	News 10's George Warren joins us live from Sacramento International tonight to show us why.
	George?
	Well Dale, he's a pilot for a major airline.
	I've met him before and he called me last night to tell me about this little video project of his that has got Washington so worked up.
	Before he left on a flight out of San Francisco, he used a cell phone camera to offer his perspective of airport security.
	If anybody recognizes this terminal, This is obviously San Francisco.
	A veteran airline pilot offered a video tour of San Francisco International Airport using his cell phone camera to point out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.
	As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce.
	IT'S ONLY SMOKING MIRRORS.
	SO YOU PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING GOING ON HERE.
	THE PILOT WHO ASKED THAT WE NOT IDENTIFY HIM OR HIS AIRLINE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE TSA TO CARRY A HANDGUN IN THE COCKPIT.
	WE GOT THIS THING IF WE EVER HAVE AN ACCIDENT.
	He also has access to this scary looking rescue axe on the flight deck.
	This is the passenger check-on point.
	So the pilot is asking the question, why are you and I and even he and other members of his flight crew forced to go through a security checkpoint while the people who service the aircraft are free to come and go as they please?
	Folks, I just wanted to give you an idea of what type of security for the ground personnel there is.
	This is their Screening.
	As you can see, there's only a cart slide and one door.
	So when you see a cart, those carts aren't screened at all.
	Three days after the pilot posted his airport security tour on YouTube, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house, which he also recorded.
	They were here to confiscate his federally issued handgun.
	A letter later arrived informing the pilot his status as a federal deputy was being reviewed because TSA had seen that video on YouTube.
	The pilot's attorney believes the Fed sent six people to his house to send a message.
	And the message was, you've angered us by telling the truth and by showing America that there are major security problems, despite the fact that we've spent billions of dollars, allegedly, to improve airline safety.
	The pilot is not in trouble with his airline, although a supervisor asked him to remove the video from YouTube.
	There's no screening here.
	There's no TSA here.
	But he does face possible civil penalties for what the TSA called disclosure of sensitive security information.
	And right here is the sign that says security.
	Well, I don't think there's much security here.
	The TSA pat-downs and body scanners were put into high gear as a reaction to the failed Christmas Day bombing in 2009.
	Our liberties, the feds say, must be sacrificed in order to prevent another 9-11, and so they defended these blatant assaults on our freedoms in an op-ed piece written by none other than Big Sis Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security.
	What most Americans don't know, however, is that the eyewitnesses Kurt and Lori Haskell saw a sharp-dressed man escort the would-be bomber on the plane, despite the warnings from his own father that he had become radicalized.
	The sharp-dressed man, as discovered later, was working with the U.S.
	State Department.
	Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary of management for the Department of Homeland Security, stated that Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.
	NBC political analyst Richard Wolff, also author of Renegade, The Making of a President.
	Richard, good evening.
	Good evening, Keith.
	What is the focus here right now?
	Is it the pushback of borders at other airports?
	Is it the indication that intelligence such as what the NSA knew about al-Qaeda in Yemen, using a Nigerian man for an attack, was not, maybe is not being utilized?
	Where is the focus right now?
	Well, I was speaking to White House folks earlier today, and it's clear the President is still deeply concerned and troubled, even angry at the intelligence lapses.
	But they see this more as an intelligence lapse, more than a situation of airport security faults.
	So, the question here is, why didn't the centralized system of intelligence that was set up after 9-11, why didn't it work?
	Is this conspiracy or cock-up?
	Is it a case of The agencies having so much rivalry between them that they were more determined to stymie each other or their centralized system rather than dealing with the terrorist threat?
	Or was it just there were so many dots no one could connect them because it was just all too random to figure out?
	Seems that the president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda.
	This sort of incompetence is the reason that American citizens now have to choose between a violation of their Fourth Amendment right or a violation of their Fourth Amendment right when going to the airport.
	Because of the sheer incompetence and overbearing bureaucracy at the federal government, we the people are giving up more and more of our rights so that the incompetent government can make us, quote, secure.
	And as the Department of Gen.
	Napolitano recently said, the TSA isn't going anywhere.
	And whether or not one believes that some elements in the government allow this to happen, to institute the new invasive policies, is not relevant.
	The fact of the matter is no matter which way you look at this, the government is either conspiring or is completely incompetent, and we the people are losing our rights and suffering because of it.
	But it is far worse than just what is going on at the airports.
	The same so-called authorities have been calling for these kind of checkpoints and frisking people all over the country.
	Some cases have even been reported by the mainstream media.
	Our Tampa police and federal government agencies are teaming up to keep your family safe.
	They unveiled a new plan that could stop a potential terror threat where hundreds of people pass through each day.
	Bill Logan was there for a first-hand look.
	It's the sort of security we've seen a lot of since 9-11 at places like airports and seaports and major sporting events.
	Now, here at the bus station.
	To sort of invent the wheel in advance in case we have to.
	If there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here this way, us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment's notice.
	What we're looking for are threats to national security as well as immigration law violators.
	We're also looking at one of our main initiatives which is bulk cash smuggling.
	And so passengers ready to head toward Orlando, Jacksonville, and points north had to go through a series of checks while Susu from the Tampa Airport Police Department gave the bus his sniff test.
	It's all part of what Homeland Security calls VIPER, for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response.
	Yeah, they're big on initials.
	In this team effort between TSA, ICE, CBP, and TPD.
	This is ongoing for us.
	We do this every day.
	And for the folks who travel like this day in and day out, it's a comfort in troubled times.
	I feel safe, knowing that I get on a bus and I'm not going to blow up.
	No, it's not like this sort of security is going to be on display at every bus terminal every time.
	But the message here is, it could be.
	That's why we'll be back.
	We won't say when we'll be back, because it's the first time we're doing.
	But this way, the bad guys, if you will, are on notice that we'll be back.
	In Tampa, Bill Logan, ABC Action.
	Some instances, however, have not been reported on or even commented on.
	This clip shows a man walking down the street documenting dozens of people with TSA Inspector on their jackets, refusing to divulge what they are doing patrolling the streets.
	Why is the TSA here?
	I'm sorry?
	Why is the TSA here?
	I can't answer that for you.
	So does the city hire you guys?
	Why is the TSA here?
	I'm just confused.
	If you've got a question, I can get you a phone number and have something for you.
	Really?
	Yeah, I would like that.
	Do you have a card?
	Well, if there's a phone number and you've got a card, I'll have something to contact you with.
	Yeah, I don't have a card on me.
	Give me your name or number and I'll be happy to...
	I'm already on that list probably.
	How do you get off it?
	That's what I'm looking for.
	You got any instructions on how to get off the list?
	I ain't giving you my number.
	If you had that card though, I'll take that.
	I can't do that.
	Oh, you can't give me a card?
	TSA don't give out cards, right?
	Is that what you're telling me?
	No, we're in the public.
	I mean... TSA don't give out cards.
	We can't know who you are.
	We're paying for it, right?
	I'm trying to be fair with you.
	How come TSA's out here?
	You don't have no comment?
	No comment.
	Do you have a card we can contact you in?
	You have to go to my press office.
	Who's that?
	Well, you can just look at the phone book.
	Look at the phone book?
	Yes.
	So you can't tell me why you're here?
	No, I can't tell you.
	Why is this a big secret?
	Isn't it public?
	Shouldn't the people have a right to know?
	What are you exactly inspecting?
	Why is it such a big secret?
	Please allow passengers to exit from the airport.
	Hey, can you tell me why the TSA is here?
	You'd have to ask them.
	I did ask them, but they won't tell me anything.
	Oh, I don't know.
	Do you have a card we can reach you?
	Do you have a card that we can reach you guys?
	Let me find the I.O.
	for you.
	Can you tell me why the TSA is here?
	Can I have your name?
	Alfred.
	Who are you with?
	You know, there is a person you can talk to and I believe they're right over there.
	See the guy with the back to you over there?
	Alright, good.
	- Who were you with? - The production company.
	Why is it, he said here, I saw him.
	- You know, there is a person you can talk to and I believe they're right over there.
	See the guy with the back T over there?
	- Yeah, I already asked him.
	He said he didn't know why you guys were here.
	- All right, good.
	Well, let's take a walk.
	- So what do you guys expect in the room?
	They're just curious.
	See, I asked them.
	They won't tell me why they're here.
	I'm scared.
	WTOP reported that in order to fight terrorism, Metro Transit authorities would now be inspecting bags at random.
	I think I have to be fast, I have to be fast.
	I think I have to be fast.
	I think I have to be fast.
	In Pennsylvania, police are frisking people because they "look suspicious." Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch covered this as he debated a talk show host that actually defended these Nazi-like interrogations.
	And in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, you don't need to go to the airport to have the government molest you.
	In that city, residents are being patted down by police officers on the streets, enforcing a stop-and-frisk policy.
	They claim they can do this simply because you look suspicious.
	What the heck is happening in Philadelphia?
	You know as well as I do the police can't stop you on the basis of the way you look.
	Well, I don't think they're stopping you, Judge, on the basis of the way you look.
	They're specially trained squads, and they're taking a totality of circumstances.
	And I have to tell you, residents in Philadelphia, I'm here on the ground, are happy with this.
	There's a lawsuit.
	There's some people that are unhappy.
	But people see this driving down crimes and driving down illegal gun carry.
	Alright, well it may be driving down crimes, but at what cost?
	Let's see, the total number of people, total number of people stopped and frisked is about 250,000.
	The population of the city of Philadelphia is about one and a half million.
	One in six residents of the city of Philadelphia are stopped.
	What standards do the police use when they stop you?
	Well, as I understand it, Judge, we've had them on frequently.
	There's a specially trained squad.
	They're taking a look at a totality of circumstances.
	It could be something as simple as people holding their hands in their coat on a street corner, a gang gathered on a street corner.
	It could be people... Wait a minute.
	People standing on a street corner with their hands in their coat pockets?
	Yes!
	What is that?
	What is that?
	Wait a minute, Judge.
	Wait a minute.
	And, in another blatant violation of the Insurrection Act and Fourth Amendment, The federal government has paid for and is using over 500 x-ray vans to x-ray people while they drive and can even be used on people while they are in their own homes.
	The Z Backscatter Van from American Science and Engineering.
	From the outside, the ZDV looks like an ordinary delivery van, allowing it to blend in to urban and other landscapes.
	Yet, as it passes by cars, trucks, containers, and other objects, its unparalleled x-ray screening system provides photo-like images, detecting explosives, weapons, contraband, and stowaways.
	These images can be immediately analyzed by the operator seated in the ZDV's cab.
	The ZBV is the perfect screening tool for seaports, military bases, border crossings, checkpoints, and any other locations where illegal material or IEDs can be smuggled in via cars, trucks, or other vehicles.
	Using AS&E's unique Backscatter technology, the ZBV produces electronically generated x-rays that detect substances containing low atomic number elements, such as carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen.
	These elements are often present in explosives and other contraband.
	The ZBB is an ideal tool for detecting these threats in vans, buses, cars, trucks, cargo containers, dumpsters, densely foliated trees and shrubs, and any other objects or containers where dangerous items can be concealed.
	Fox News even tried to legitimize this, saying that there are terrorists who want to hurt us, and hurt us bad.
	So what's wrong with the government using radiation-emitting x-ray vans to spy on all American citizens as they drive their cars?
	Using x-rays to x-ray you while you drive around.
	That's right.
	Using the same technology that's in those airport scanners.
	Feds are now using these mobile x-ray vans and they can see through cars, walls, and clothing.
	Joining us now is Mark Rotenberg, who's the executive director of Electronic Privacy Information Center.
	Mark, it's good to see you.
	We live in a very dangerous world.
	There are people who want to hurt us and hurt us badly.
	What is wrong with the government using this technology in an attempt to keep us safe?
	Well, I think in some circumstances it's appropriate.
	New technologies do help make us safe.
	But we also have important laws in this country.
	We have the Constitution, which basically say to the police that if they're going to conduct a search, there has to be probable cause, there has to be judicial approval.
	What we don't want is the police investigating everybody.
	We want them investigating the bad guys.
	In another complete violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, the federal government is also instituting the fast technology, which even suggests in its promotional video that these interrogation units be used at concerts and sports stadiums, federal buildings, airports, border which even suggests in its promotional video that these interrogation units be
	Under the Future Attribute Screening Technologies, or FAST program, the Department of Homeland Security is developing or FAST program, the Department of Homeland Security is developing innovative physiological and behavioral screening technologies to streamline the screening process at security checkpoints.
	The mobility of the FAST demonstration laboratory allows security officials to quickly and efficiently establish security boundaries at any location, making it useful for everything from large sporting events, border crossings, or airports.
	The screening mobile module provides a checkpoint to establish or supplement security facilities at points of entry.
	At special events, attendees pass through the screening mobile module.
	Inside the screening mobile module, a suite of real-time, non-invasive sensors measure behavioral and physiological indications of malintent, or the intent or desire to cause harm.
	Step forward and stand on those footprints on that map.
	What I'm going to have you do is, can you put your purse in your pocket or just beside there?
	I'm going to have you look in my direction.
	Just keep your hands to the side and try and refrain from movement.
	Just try and remain as still as possible and we'll begin soon.
	Did you show your ID to the first guard?
	Are you attempting to smuggle an explosive device into the expo today?
	Are you from the local area?
	Are you attempting to smuggle a recording device into the expo today?
	Have you been in the local area all day today?
	Do you plan to detonate an explosive at the expo today?
	Do you plan to detonate an explosive at the expo?
	Do you plan to illegally record any information at the expo today?
	And the Department of Homeland Security is right on board with this, as they have just recently announced that, quote, soft targets, which include shopping malls and hotels and other modes of transportation, must be scrutinized.
	This means either TSA agents or other alphabet agencies of the federal government will be deployed to the American streets, or that local law enforcement agencies are partnering up with the federal agencies, which means nothing more than the militarization of the local law enforcement, exactly which means nothing more than the militarization of the local law enforcement, exactly what our founding fathers
	One should not have to be reminded about the fact that every authoritarian dictator from Hitler to Stalin treated his own citizen as a criminal and would search them without reason to make sure they weren't threats to the homeland.
	One needn't be reminded that our own founding fathers had to endure this kind of nonsense from their own tyrannical government under King George.
	We should not have to be reminded that our founding fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment because they endured the same unjust searches and seizures by their own government.
	We must all be reminded that George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the same document upon which Thomas Jefferson relied heavily when writing the Declaration of Independence,
	"...that general warrants whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offensive is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."
	These things need to be reminded to the American people, because we are giving up liberty for security, which according to Ben Franklin, those that do so will gain neither and deserve neither.
	And although these fears of a federal takeover might sound like the quote, incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism, to quote James Madison, It is a serious and continuing threat to the freedoms of the American people.
	In Pennsylvania, for example, the Department of Homeland Security was caught hiring Foreign Israeli Intelligence, also known as Mossad, for spying on American citizens at tea parties and other instances.
	One FBI whistleblower even stated that the FBI was spying covertly on tea parties nationwide.
	These policies are in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
	But now, our own federal government, that has usurped so much power from the state governments already, is now encouraging its own citizens to spy on each other and report suspicious activities, as if we need to be told by a telescreen to report crime to the appropriate authorities.
	Hi, I'm Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
	Homeland security begins with hometown security.
	That's why I'm pleased that Walmart is helping to make our communities more safe and secure.
	If you see something suspicious in the parking lot or in the store, say something immediately.
	Report suspicious activity to your local police or sheriff.
	If you need help, ask a Walmart manager for assistance.
	Thank you for doing your part to help keep our hometowns safe.
	Janet Napolitano wants the American citizens to report suspicious activity.
	But what is scary is that the way the federal government and the DHS and even FBI has defined suspicious, which you will get to shortly.
	It is not, however, the first time that the federal government has asked its citizens or even emergency personnel to report suspicious activity to the federal government.
	The sad truth is that the federal government is training its citizens to become domestic government snitches.
	The introduction of the iPhone application of the Patriot app, which conveniently sounds similar to the non-patriotic and constitution-violating Patriot Act, caused many Americans to become concerned with the fact that people were being asked to spy on each other and report suspicious activity, again, similar to the DHS's If You See Something, Say Something Walmart campaign.
	The iPhone application was created by Citizen Concepts, which according to their own website, is an application that empowers citizens to create safer, cleaner, and more efficient communities by leveraging social networking and mobile technology.
	Although their own website portrays them as an independent organization, all one has to do is look at their page titled "The Team" to see that the company is made up of government insiders, including two employees that have worked with the DHS and the DOD.
	Transcription by CastingWords
	Along with this spy-on-your-neighbor campaign, we also see the iWatch program, which tells Americans, again, to spy on each other.
	It even has a list that defines potential terrorists as a person wearing clothing too big or too heavy for the weather.
	People drawing school buildings or government buildings are also potential terrorists that must be reported to the feds, according to iWatch.
	Hi, I'm Mary Grady, and I work for the LAPD.
	You know, after 9-11, I felt really helpless, and I know a lot of people had that same feeling.
	It's the kind of event that makes you ask the question, is this something that could happen again?
	We know our police and firefighters are doing everything that they can to keep us safe, but what can I do?
	What can you do?
	There could be another terrorist attack, which is why all of us have to work together to report suspicious activity.
	I watch L.A.
	because this is my home.
	If I see something, I'll say something.
	I'm also going to join the I Watch L.A.
	group on Facebook and MySpace.
	I don't want to feel helpless.
	Go to IWatchLA.org.
	What is I Watch?
	It's a way to report suspicious behavior or activity that relates to terrorism.
	Terrorism is a crime.
	It is our shared responsibility to keep America safe.
	That's why I, I watch.
	It's like a neighborhood watch for the whole city.
	If you see, hear, or smell something suspicious, report it.
	Reporting is easy.
	Use the web or the phone.
	Let law enforcement determine if it's a threat.
	Let the experts decide.
	I watch my street.
	I watch my city.
	I watch my community.
	I watch my America.
	I watch because I have a sister.
	A brother.
	A family.
	I watch because I have grandkids.
	I watch because I care.
	Because I think it's important.
	A simple observation.
	A single report.
	Can lead to actions that can stop a terrorist attack.
	Think about that.
	Think about the power of that.
	Think about the power of iWatch.
	I watch.
	I report.
	I keep us safe.
	To report or learn more, go to iWatchLA.org.
	My name is Chris Matthews.
	My name is Mona.
	Greta Ballard.
	Rachel.
	George.
	My name is Carlos and I iWatch.
	EcoSnoop, another spy on your neighbor iPhone application, tries to convince American citizens to spy on private office buildings and businesses and encourage them to report these so-called offenses.
	Hi, I'm Stacey and welcome to the Appensee Press, your source for quality mobile application reviews and news.
	Have you ever walked down a city street long after all the businesses have closed, looked up at a quiet office building and seen all the lights still on?
	Or maybe, headed into the restroom at your favorite restaurant and you notice that the faucet is stuck at a steady drip, wasting gallons of water each and every day.
	EcoSnoop is the first iPhone application on the market to put environmental activism in the hands of the everyday citizen.
	It's simple to use and works with any iPhone or iPod touch.
	Through EcoSnoop, the feet-on-the-street environmentalist can tag and report environmental issues wherever they go.
	Let's try it out!
	Let's say we are walking past that same building with its lights on again, except this time we have EcoSnoop on our iPhone.
	Simply open EcoSnoop and snap a photo of the offense.
	Using GPS, EcoSnoop will tag the location of the case so that other EcoSnoopers can monitor the issue and help make the business or person more aware.
	Once you've taken the photo, Click Proceed and EcoSnoop will ask you to select a category of the offense.
	Since this is about Lights On, let's select Energy.
	As you can see, on the next screen, we are given a couple of selections to better describe the case.
	This falls under Off Hours Lighting, so let's select that.
	Give the offense a name.
	I'll call this one I See the Light.
	And finally, hit Send.
	Piece of cake?
	By clicking on the mine button on the bottom of the screen, I can quickly review all of the items I have submitted in the past and see if anyone else has commented on them.
	I can also go to the nearby section and EcoSnoop will use GPS data to give me a full report of offenses in my area.
	Most Americans that watched the Super Bowl in 2010 remember the Audi commercial with the so-called Green Police that tagged American citizens with tickets and fines for committing eco-crimes.
	What most Americans don't know, however, is that the Green Police was also the name given to the Secret Police, or Gestapo, under Adolf Hitler during his dictatorial regime.
	One must ask, is this really so far-fetched, considering we have a congress that banned the incandescent lightbulbs under the Bush administration?
	Okay, so it's 3708.
	Uh, paper or plastic?
	Plastic.
	That's the magic word.
	Green police.
	You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy.
	Battery!
	Let's go, take the house!
	Put the rind down!
	Sir, that's a compost infection!
	Oh!
	Did you install these bulbs?
	No.
	Tragedy strikes tonight where a man has just been arrested for possession of an incandescent light bulb.
	What do you guys think about plastic bottles now?
	The water setting is at a hundred and five.
	We got a TDI here.
	Clean diesel.
	You're good to go sir.
	Good afternoon officers.
	Hey, are those Styrofoam cups you're drinking from?
	Yeah.
	Can you please step out of the car and put them on the hood?
	The same system that tells you to spy on your neighbor is spying on you.
	This is a real commercial from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue.
	Your name is Tom.
	You live just off of 5th Street.
	Nice car, Tom.
	Nice house.
	What's not so nice is you owe Pennsylvania $4,212 in back taxes.
	Listen, Tom, we can make this easy.
	Pay online by June 18th, and we'll skip your penalty and take half off your interest.
	"Because, Tom, we do know who you are." The Department of Homeland Security, under both the Bush administration and now the Obama administration, have been openly working with firefighters to report any suspicious literature that might be critical of the federal government to the Department of Homeland Security.
	Democrat propagandist Keith Olbermann, whether you love him or hate him, interviewed a spokesman for the ACLU regarding this blatant assault on our freedoms.
	Actual firemen being trained to seek out illegal materials, to be on the lookout for people who express either hate or even just discontent with the United States, and to report back to the government about them as possible terrorist suspects.
	And because firemen and other emergency workers usually do not need a warrant to enter someone's home, they can go places that law enforcement can't, and not just during a fire, but say, during fire code inspections.
	Nearly a year ago, Homeland Security gave secret clearance to nine New York City fire chiefs, sharing intelligence with them in return for information on suspicious materials and behavior.
	If the information-sharing program works in New York, the department says it will extend it to other major metropolitan areas.
	Unless we stop them.
	I'm joined now by Mike German, former FBI agent who is now National Security Policy Counsel to the ACLU.
	Great, thanks for your time tonight, sir.
	Thanks for having me, Keith.
	Obviously, everybody should be alerting law enforcement if they see something suspicious or possibly related to terrorism.
	Firefighters are not excluded from that.
	But especially given their right to go into a building, not just for fires, but to evaluate fire safety, this program seems to be turning them essentially into legally protected domestic spies, does it not?
	That's exactly what it's doing, and that's the entire intent of this program, is to turn firefighters and emergency medical personnel into intelligence gatherers.
	The Department of Homeland Security has also been working with the Boy Scouts of America.
	They're training them to take on terrorists and illegal immigrants, as reported in the New York Times.
	The average American response to this might be that there is nothing wrong with the federal government training people that have no affiliation with law enforcement to report suspicious activity.
	What is wrong, they might ask, with having everyone do their part in reporting terrorism?
	The problem is how the federal government defines terrorism.
	There are literally dozens of instances in which the federal government defines domestic terrorists, and even the broader term, terrorist, as a US citizen that is angry with the policies of the federal government, and that even includes tax protesters, libertarians, gun owners, Tea Party members, Ron Paul supporters, just about anyone that speaks out against the criminal activities of the federal government, which we will cover here.
	Within a month of the September 11th attacks, members of Congress and George W. Bush introduced the USA PATRIOT Act to the rest of the fear-ridden Congress.
	No one was allowed to read the bill, and without much debate, the bill was passed and signed into law.
	When people were finally able to read the bill, they found to their horror that not only did the federal government usurp powers not granted to it, and expand its ability to wiretap American citizens, But it created a new crime.
	Domestic terrorism.
	Section 802 of the bill defines domestic terrorists as any U.S.
	citizen that appears to intend to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
	The fact of the matter is that anyone that protests, engages in rallies, or even picket lines is considered a domestic terrorist by the Patriot Act because these are all forms of intimidating our elected government workers to influence the policy of government.
	Many people on the so-called right of the political spectrum were outraged when the Department of Homeland Security issued a report in April 2009 called Right-Wing Extremism, Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Radicalization and Recruitment.
	The report even defined right-wing extremism as, "...divided into these groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented, based on hatred of particular religions, racial, or ethnic groups, and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."
	It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
	In other words, those in favor of the Tenth Amendment, which grants powers that are not delegated to the federal government, to the states, and to the people, are defined and targeted by the Department of Homeland Security as right-wing extremists.
	Anti-abortionists and those opposed to illegal immigrants are also targeted.
	What is worse is that this report even stated, quote, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.
	The economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for the right-wing radicalization and recruitment.
	The DHS admitted that they have no information, but issued to law enforcement a detailed nine-page analysis of what may be a problem without any current information to back their claims.
	The report also targeted American citizens who are concerned that there is a push to merge nations together into a world-governing system.
	One just needs to look at the European Union to see that the merging of nation-states is a reality and a possibility.
	The report also targeted former military veterans, saying that these so-called extremists, about which the DHS admits that they have no information about them committing acts of violence, would try to recruit them due to their knowledge of how to use firearms.
	This angered conservative commentators nationwide and gained media attention from Michael Savage, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, and virtually everyone else.
	We have learned today from the Washington Times that big sister Janet Napolitano, the head of so-called Homeland Security, is monitoring what she considers to be extremist right-wing groups in America.
	That would be you if you are against abortion.
	That would be you if you are against illegal aliens.
	That would be you if you have voted against homosexual marriage.
	That would be you if you are a returning veteran who can use weapons.
	I am not making this up.
	We have the entire report from the DHS on michaelsavage.com and you can't get on the site.
	Are you concerned about abortion?
	You may be a right-wing extremist.
	Are you worried about preserving your borders?
	Are you worried about illegal aliens being granted amnesty?
	Yeah, well, you may be targeted by Homeland Security.
	Now, I predicted this would happen.
	I told you about two years ago, a year and a half ago, that I feared that if there were another terrorist event in America, when you said, well, will they finally stop the growing threat from Islam within?
	Will they finally investigate these Islamvilles going up all over America?
	These armed training camps with Islamic extremists?
	I said, no, they won't.
	What they're going to do is they're going to come after you, the loyal American.
	Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann even brought this up to the rest of the Congress, suggesting that Janet Napolitano resign, but to no avail.
	And I think we're at the point now where we need to have a hearing.
	We need to have our Director of Homeland Security in front of the members of Congress.
	Call her to account.
	Ask her why, on multiple occasions in this document, they call people who believe in the sanctity of life, who believe in owning firearms, who believe in serving their country in the military and coming back.
	Who are very concerned about the policies that this nation is embarking on.
	Spending too much money.
	Taxing too much.
	It's all listed right here.
	These are the domestic right-wing extremists.
	That is so frightening that we need to have our Homeland Security Secretary in front of members of Congress and ask her, does she really believe this?
	Is this really her opinion?
	Because if it is, I think it would be imperative and incumbent upon us to ask for her resignation.
	It's not too soon to do that.
	Nevertheless, Janet Napolitano went on CNN's State of the Union and said, contrary to the actual report itself, that right-wing groups are actively recruiting members for violence.
	As you know, a recent report from your department raised a lot of eyebrows and caused a bit of controversy because in that report you said this, that the Department of Homeland Security assesses that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.
	The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join the extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
	Is being replicated today?
	You have active intelligence that tells you people coming back from Iraq, coming back from Afghanistan, who might be mad at the military, who might simply have post-traumatic stress disorder, are being actively recruited by extremist groups?
	Certainly.
	And our department is not the only department that has made that comment.
	The FBI has made the same comment.
	Other groups have made the same comment.
	Here's the important point.
	The report is not saying that veterans are extremists.
	Far from it.
	What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country.
	We want to do all we can to prevent that.
	But when you say we'll attempt, who are these groups?
	What do they want to do?
	Well, it's a number of groups, almost far too numerous to mention, regrettably so.
	But some of them, indeed, want to do what happened in Oklahoma City.
	That is, commit violent acts within the homeland.
	Unfortunately for the American people, this was not the only report issued targeting American citizens as terrorists.
	The Missouri Information Analysis Center issued their infamous MIAC report, called the Modern Militia Movement, earlier the same year.
	The 2009 document not only targeted gun owners and militias, which are legal under the Second Amendment, but it also targeted people that oppose a North American Union, claiming that these concerns are just conspiracy theories.
	Even though these issues were reported by the mainstream press and even by CNN's Lou Dobbs both under the Bush administration and then under the Obama administration.
	Representatives of the United States, Canada and Mexico preparing for a summer meeting to further the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
	The SPP, which many consider to be simply a blueprint for the North American Union, would weaken U.S.
	laws and regulations and diminish American sovereignty.
	Kenny Pilgrim has our report.
	President Bush, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin conceived the Security and Prosperity Partnership between the three countries in 2005.
	A summit is scheduled in Canada later this summer to flesh out more details, but current information on any agreements is scarce.
	The Security and Prosperity Partnership will deliver neither security nor prosperity for the simple reason that it's not so far been democratic.
	Most of the discussions have been taking place behind closed doors.
	Now new documents have come to light about how U.S.
	taxpayers may end up footing the bill.
	Watchdog Group Judicial Watch dug up documents through the Freedom of Information Act.
	It's a financial work plan that describes how U.S.
	taxpayers would fund grants to Mexico.
	The work plan states, the establishment of a grant fund for development with U.S.
	and Canadian resources to finance the development of physical infrastructure in Mexico.
	I don't like the idea of taxpayer money being spent on dubious government enterprises.
	And I certainly don't like the idea of taxpayer money being spent to build up Mexico's physical infrastructure.
	Mexico has plenty of inherent wealth as a result of its oil, and as a result of the $20 billion or so a year that Mexican illegals here send through to Mexico.
	The group says the 10-page work plan for financial services was filed somewhat incongruously among health and human service records.
	U.S.
	taxpayers would not be alone.
	Canadian funds would also be committed to the project.
	Judicial Watch is calling for complete transparency and disclosure on this.
	They say public and legislative oversight of the details of the SPP is cursory, and Judicial Watch is questioning how taxpayer money can be so lightly promised to other countries, Lou.
	Well, another announcement today by President-elect Obama giving new life to the North American Union, a plan by business and political elites to tear down the trade barriers among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and to create a NAFTA superhighway, all of which to be done without the approval of Congress or the American people.
	President-elect Obama named a diehard free trader and NAFTA supporter to be his U.S.
	trade representative.
	Bill Tucker has our report.
	Ron Kirk is President-elect Obama's pick to be his front man on trade.
	Kirk made his name in politics, serving as mayor of Dallas, where he was known as a staunch supporter of free trade agreements, NAFTA in particular.
	He was a big proponent of a trade corridor from Mexico up through Texas, a road he once referred to as a NAFTA freeway.
	His nomination was welcomed by the U.S.
	Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
	Advocates for a change in trade policy are not so happy.
	There's clearly been a gap between President-elect Obama's pledges to the American public to truly transform our failed trade policy and some of the very important economic appointments he's made who represent people who help implement or at least support the failed status quo.
	Congressman Phil Herr, a Democrat from Obama's home state of Illinois, issued a statement expressing his disappointment, saying, quote, I have concerns about Mayor Kirk's vocal support for NAFTA and unfair trade with China.
	Mayor Kirk previously has said he wants to make Dallas the capital city of NAFTA.
	But for every Dallas, there are dozens of Galesburgs.
	A place President-elect Obama knows well.
	Maytag, the appliance maker, was once the largest employer in Galesburg, Illinois, until it moved 1,600 jobs to Mexico.
	Critics say the appointment falls in line with others by Obama, and they don't like what they see.
	If you look at President Obama's economic team, they have all been enthusiastic supporters of outsourcing-focused trade policy agreements that have exported not only good jobs from American shores, but high-value, technology-intensive production.
	Our current trading policies have created a near $1 trillion deficit and have been blamed for the loss of millions of American jobs that have moved to low-wage countries.
	Now the apparent contradiction in Obama's words and actions has activists on another front worried.
	Last February, Obama pledged that he would resume the Security and Prosperity Partnership talks between Mexico and Canada that President Bush initiated.
	He also said the talks will be transparent.
	Those opposed to the North American Union say that now whether he will or will not deliver on that promise becomes something they doubt.
	The report also stated Citizenship is not an entitlement program.
	by President Obama and his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, have led extremists to fear that mandatory training for citizens between 18 and 25 might come to fruition.
	"Citizenship is not an entitlement program.
	It comes with responsibilities.
	Everybody somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25 will serve three months of basic training and understanding in a kind of civil defense.
	That universal sense of service, somewhere between the ages of 18-25, will give Americans, once again, a sense of what they are to be American and their contribution to a country and a common experience.
	And you look at World War II, and that was a draft, but this is not a draft, it's a universal service.
	Well, you have to, in a sense, it's a required of everybody, 18 to 25, three months.
	Apparently, taking our politicians at their word makes one an extremist.
	The Mayak Report listed supposed ideologies of these so-called extremists.
	Among these are Christian identity, white nationalist, sovereign citizen, militant abortion, tax resistors, and anti-immigration.
	The report even stated that the extremists' political paraphernalia includes material supporting the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin, Campaign for Liberty, and other third-party candidates.
	And what might be the most shocking element about this report is that the last page lists anti-government propaganda.
	Among them is the famous Gadsden flag, which made a comeback with the rise of the Tea Party movement, and an upside-down American flag.
	Aaron Russo's famous movie, America from Freedom to Fascism, which exposes the corruption at the IRS and Federal Reserve, is also among this propaganda list.
	The fact that these reports are being given to local law enforcement should be troubling at the least.
	Local police officers are being told lies about everyday citizens, and based on these lies, these citizens are being monitored.
	However, it does not stop with these reports.
	The Department of Justice issued an approximately 120-page glossary called Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism, Terms and Concepts.
	which defines itself as a tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations.
	Among these terms are terms used by, quote, conspiracy theorists.
	Terms like genetically modified organisms, precious metals dealers, counsel on foreign relations, constitutionalists, Bilderberg, Constitution Party, patriot movement, flag of distress, monetary realist, militia movement, executive order,
	Terminology used by ordinary citizens that have a problem with how the federal government is operating is listed by the Department of Justice as terms used by terrorists and criminal extremists.
	And of course, like the other reports, the definitions given are misleading or an outright lie.
	These definitions have been debunked in an in-depth analysis, which can be seen by visiting the Activist Post's website.
	There have been other reports throughout the country similar to these.
	Virginia issued a training manual to their law enforcement stating that property rights advocates, along with environmental and animal rights so-called extremists, are potential domestic terrorists.
	Those who oppose an abuse of eminent domain are apparently a threat to national security, according to the state of Virginia.
	The Virginia Fusion Center, which tracks everyday citizens in real time, issued the Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment in 2009, which states, Domestic threat groups are viewed as a more significant threat to the Commonwealth due to the increased number of threat groups and the elevated number of incidents.
	It lists militias and special interest groups as domestic terrorist threats.
	It's important to note that by placing special interest groups along with black separatists, white nationalists, and others, this report essentially includes every single kind of activist, whether they are violent or not.
	Again, militias are a target of this report as well, as it states, recent activities have included the online promotion of a rifle and pistol marksmanship training on December 20th, as if that were a crime.
	And like the other reports, anti-abortionists are also targeted under their Special Interest Extremist Group.
	Texas law enforcement issued a pamphlet in 2006 on domestic terrorism, with some unusual characteristics of so-called terrorists.
	Among these traits are large cash products of beer and liquor, cigarettes, cars, large amounts of clothing, especially Levi's jeans, Large amounts of medicine.
	It goes on.
	Taking photographs of infrastructure like a tourist would is also noted as suspicious activity.
	Possessing GPS systems are also considered suspicious under this report.
	And of course, public rallies and demonstrations and private meetings are all considered suspicious activity according to the state of Texas.
	The FBI even linked almanacs to terrorism in the year 2003.
	Is it any surprise that FEMA officials have even been videotaped training law enforcement officials that our founding fathers were the first terrorists of the country?
	Who was the first terrorist organization in the United States?
	Who?
	Tommy Bob.
	Tommy Bob.
	You mean Thomas Jefferson?
	Oh, yes.
	You mean, uh, George Washington?
	Oh, yes.
	Paul and Baird?
	Yes.
	These guys right here, let me ask you something.
	Did they try to scare people?
	They tried to intimidate the British.
	Did they use acts of violence?
	Your founding fathers, my founding fathers, were involved in acts of terrorism against British officials because they systematically had British officials assassinated.
	The guys who we call our founding fathers, George Washington, Mr. Honest, who cut down the cherry tree and admitted it, is the same guy who signed death orders, if you will, on members of the greatest government, the greatest crown, who they wanted to eliminate because politically they had influence in certain pockets of the United States, at that time the 13 colonies, and they wanted to divide and conquer.
	It is clear that compartments within the federal government are targeting U.S.
	citizens for merely exercising their 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendment rights.
	There have been numerous documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and other alphabet groups to law enforcement all over the country labeling ordinary American citizens as terrorists.
	Whether they're tax protesters, property rights advocates, Tea Party members, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, advocates to abolish the Federal Reserve, anti-globalists, it doesn't matter to the federal government.
	The American people are the targets and the topics of the federal government who are now training the local law enforcement agencies.
	And also we got two related documents that clearly state our government is targeting not only Ron Paul supporters, but also people who believe in biblical prophecy, people who support the Constitution, people who support the Second Amendment.
	And two of these documents is called the FBI's Project Megiddo.
	And in this document it openly states that people who believe in biblical prophecy is considered a dangerous person or a terrorist.
	And also you got Endgame, the Office of Detention and Strategic Plan of 2003 to 2012.
	And this is by the Department of Homeland Security.
	And the document states how they establish all this continuity to go after people such as Ron Paul supporters, people who believe in your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Amendments, people who believe in your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Amendments, People who want to be Americans.
	People who want to support the Constitution.
	People who want to live free and live without tyranny.
	And these documents target people like that.
	And it's our duty as Americans to stand up against this.
	And we're not saying to go on a shooting spree, but you know what?
	To get informed, get involved, and do something.
	You know, run for office.
	There's things we can do to stop this.
	I mean, we've got our constitutional rights and we can nullify such documents as these.
	They're very similar to the MIAC report.
	You know, there's just a number, two of a number of documents our federal government has that states people who believe in this stuff are domestic terrorists.
	And it's our duty as Americans, again, to stand up against this.
	And to do that, again, you gotta get informed, inform the people, go run for an office, you know, challenge your elected officials.
	You know, make sure they do their jobs.
	If you don't like them, whatever, but challenge them.
	Get, you know, write to your congressmen, to your senators, you know, go even to your mayors, your governors.
	You know, it's our duty, and not only our duty, but our responsibility under the Constitution to do this.
	One of the troubling things that link all these documents together, the DHS report on right-wing extremism, the MIAC report, the Virginia Fusion Center, all of these reports continuously have one theme in common, and that is, they refer to anyone who explains and that is, they refer to anyone who explains or talks openly about these problems as conspiracy theorists.
	The MIAC report and the DHS report both stated that those who have a problem with a North American union that CNN even reported on, they're conspiracy theorists.
	People who use the term New World Order to refer to a system of global governance that was actually coined by former President George H.W.
	Bush, they're somehow conspiracy theorists.
	In every single one of these instances, they use the term conspiracy theorist to try and denigrate what we're talking about.
	But when the mainstream news and when the federal government says something and we refer to it, We're somehow labeled a conspiracy theorist, and these reports are being given to local law enforcement nationwide.
	And so, these people who are working hand-in-hand with the federal government at the local level, they're being told to keep an ear out for people who use these terms like Bilderberg Group, which has been actually talked at length by Daniel Estilin at the United Nations Parliament.
	People who use the term Council on Foreign Relations, which is in fact a real organization that does meet behind closed doors, which has been made up of the elite of America, including the Clintons, members of the Treasury, Goldman Sachs, big corporations and politicians and media.
	They're all a part of this organization, and yet all of these documents say those who use these terms and refer to these groups Are somehow conspiracy theorists.
	And that's the problem.
	One of the biggest problems that we, the people, have to overcome is making this kind of information mainstream and making it so we are no longer called conspiracy theorists when we're just referring to actual news that's being reported in the mainstream press.
	The FBI in the city of Phoenix, Arizona is also defining right-wing extremism as defenders of the Constitution against the federal government and UN, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, of course.
	And common law proponents, it states, engage in, quote, policing the police, even though it is completely legal to film a police officer because they are public workers.
	The reason that people videotape police officers is because the local law enforcement has been lied to and infiltrated by the federal government that legally defines the U.S.
	Constitution-loving citizens as terrorists and possible criminals.
	If local police officers are going to arrest citizens for no legitimate reason, or if they abuse their power by acting out inappropriately, the only recourse that we the people have is a video account of what really happened.
	Especially with the revelation that many police officers have been given steroids which can affect their judgment during confrontations.
	Instances of police brutality can only be documented if people are allowed to videotape public workers, which police are.
	This instance was caught on film after excessive celebrations at the University of Maryland.
	Without the ability of citizens to videotape this kind of action, We would not have the ability to make sure that those who act out inappropriately are dealt with accordingly.
	This video was taken by a citizen during the event known as Critical Mass, where bicyclists ride their bikes to either protest or raise awareness for certain issues.
	Had it not been for this random citizen taking film, this instance of police brutality would not have been able to get documented.
	The video speaks for itself, showing an unidentified police officer during Friday's critical mass bike ride.
	Walking over towards the left of your screen, he throws a tackle onto cyclist Christopher Long.
	He just like turned and body checked the kid off into the curb and was just, I was so shocked about it.
	I just couldn't believe that this cop did this.
	Witness Craig Radhuber doesn't know the man knocked off the bike.
	He was there to see it all happen.
	As shocked as we are to find out the cyclist, the 29-year-old from Hoboken, ended up being the one charged in the incident.
	He's accused of assaulting the police officer, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct.
	This is not to say that all police officers are bad and on power trips.
	The point is, however, that they are public workers, and the only known recourse that citizens have is being able to document any confrontation that they might have.
	People are even being arrested for protesting at the White House.
	Whether or not you agree with anti-war protesters, the police arrested 61 peaceful protesters because they did not have a permit, as if the First Amendment mentions anything about permits for protests on public sidewalks.
	More than 60 anti-war demonstrators were arrested from in front of the White House on Monday.
	Timed to coincide with the anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, demonstrators included members of Witness Against Torture, Activist Response Team and Veterans for Peace, and National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance.
	An estimated 500 people gathered at the White House to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to request a meeting with President Barack Obama.
	Some of the demonstrators chained themselves to the White House fence and some lay prone on the sidewalk, while some even demonstrated the gruesome nature of waterboarding, as others demanded an end to the wars.
	It is a violation of regulations to have a book in this area.
	You have exceeded the 25 person limit.
	You must leave the cross course of the White House sidewalk now.
	All persons remaining on the cross course of the White House sidewalk will be arrested.
	The arrests took place following repeated requests to move back from the sidewalk by Park Police, citing violation of permit laws.
	According to Park Police officials, those arrested were cited and released.
	David Swanson, author of the book Daybreak, who was also arrested today, later said that the demonstrators did not move back because they chose to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
	Students at the University of Austin, Texas, were denied their right to peacefully assemble on school grounds because it was outside of the quote, free speech zones.
	Again, as if the First Amendment is only allowed in designated areas.
	As if America itself isn't a free speech zone.
	You're welcome to take this discussion there, take your signs there.
	This is the last warning before you leave.
	A traditional place for a public debate to go on is on a university campus, unless it's like Kent State.
	This is my press pass, so I'm here as a president.
	I have a right to peaceably assemble.
	Excuse me.
	Okay, I thank you.
	Do you appreciate that it's public?
	Are you a student?
	Are you a student?
	I'm going to read the First Amendment of the Constitution.
	Am I breaking the law, sir?
	Am I being detained right now?
	Am I being detained right now?
	You guys don't want to do this.
	- Are you a student? - I ask you to use your discretion.
	- Thank you. - I'm gonna read the First Amendment of the Constitution.
	- I know what the first one is.
	- Am I breaking the law, sir? - You've been asked to leave.
	- Am I being detained right now?
	- You have been asked to leave.
	- Am I being detained right now?
	You guys don't wanna do this.
	You're about to violate my civil rights.
	And she knows it as well.
	There's no violence going on.
	It's a peaceful discussion.
	It may have gotten a little heated, but it's peaceful.
	People are learning from each other.
	Maybe not learning too much from each other.
	But maybe you'll learn a lot more from seeing a gentleman that's standing here very calmly with a press pass, John Bush, exercising three, two of my First Amendment rights.
	My right to free speech, my right to peaceably assemble, and the freedom of the press.
	That's three, actually.
	Three First Amendment rights which could potentially be violated by the University of Texas Police Department and the Dean's office.
	We're all witnesses.
	You guys can make sure that nothing gets escalated.
	We're all witnesses.
	We're all witnesses, John.
	We're all witnesses, John.
	"Is he under arrest?
	Is he under arrest?" Instances in which police officers use excessive force can be found all over the country as reported by ABC News.
	Peter McFarland was tased in his own home for refusing to go with the police because they thought he might be suicidal.
	All of a sudden they just showed up and they came in here like there was a fire going on or some gunfight was going on.
	The video you're about to see is from a camera mounted on the deputy's taser.
	You can see the laser from the gun targeted on his chest.
	The deputy tells McFarland he's going to take him to the hospital because he may be suicidal.
	We want to take you to the hospital for an evaluation.
	You say that you have a gun and you shoot yourself in the head.
	McFarlane tells ABC7 News it was just hyperbole.
	He was tired and in pain.
	The deputy orders him numerous times to get up or else.
	Stand up, put your hands behind your back or you're going to get tased.
	McFarlane keeps refusing.
	The exchange goes on for about five minutes.
	His wife keeps pleading with the deputies not to tase him, saying he has a heart condition.
	Then McFarlane tells the deputies in no uncertain terms to leave.
	You in my house!
	I didn't ask you in my house!
	Get out of here!
	Then, as he gets up to go to bed, he's tased.
	Not once, but three times.
	Put your hands behind your back!
	put your hands behind your back put your hands behind your back stop resisting stop resisting stop resisting
	stop resisting stop resisting - Yes sir. - Given all of this information, One must ask, why is the federal government coming up with plans to suspend the Constitution?
	And why is the federal government engaging in activities that violate our civil liberties?
	And most importantly, why is the federal government legally defining American citizens, who are doing nothing more than exercising their First, Second, and Tenth Amendment rights, as terrorists?
	Quite honestly, however, it does not matter why they are doing this.
	All that matters is that they are doing this.
	They are targeting average citizens, and it seems as if there is nothing we can do about it.
	Federal troops are being used for everyday law enforcement, and their manuals target conservatives, libertarians, gun right activists, property rights activists, everyone.
	The solution is we the people.
	We must run for state office and take back our states.
	Once we elect the right people to our state and local offices, we have the power to nullify unconstitutional and therefore illegal laws.
	We can pass resolutions to nullify and repeal unconstitutional federal mandates.
	We can press charges against illegal actions taken by agents of the federal government.
	We can sue the feds for violating the constitution and spying on us.
	We must educate ourselves and our neighbors by reading the writings of those who founded this country, and we must adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
	With the correct people in state governments, we can take our power back.
	The answer really lies within the we the people.
	We have a responsibility to run for state and local offices to take the power back.
	The legislative branch within the federal government has become so convoluted and so corrupt that it is virtually impossible to limit the power of the federal government by going to the federal government because, as our founding fathers warned us, the federal government will never police itself.
	So the real answer lies with something that Thomas Jefferson used to refer to as nullification.
	If we can elect enough Citizens to run for state and local offices, especially the state legislature.
	We have the ability to nullify any and all unconstitutional acts taken on behalf of the federal government.
	The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping.
	Take, for example, after the BP oil spill, when Bobby Jindal tried to clean up the coast of Louisiana himself, and then the U.S.
	Coast Guard came along and told him to shut it down.
	I mean, a true governor should have had the Coast Guard, the federal government workers, arrested.
	The problem is we don't have anyone anymore who has enough guts to stand up to the federal government.
	Thomas Woods wrote a book called Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.
	He reminds us that this ongoing battle between the federal and the state governments has been going on since the beginning of the country's founding.
	In 1796, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, which, I mean, if we look at the actual quotes, the federal government, when they were at war with France, the Sedition Act gave fines in general time for anyone who should write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed,
	Uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous, and malicious writings or writing against the Government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said Government, or either House of the said Congress, Or the said president.
	Or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute.
	Or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition with the United States.
	That alone completely destroys the entire idea of free speech in the First Amendment.
	And so, the idea was to nullify these kinds of acts.
	The Jeffersonian viewpoint is to nullify and pass statewide resolutions saying, hey, federal government, we're not going to, we're not playing by your rules anymore because you're clearly acting out against the states without authority granted to you by the federal constitution.
	The Kentucky Resolution of 1798, shortly after these were passed, stated, resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general or federal government,
	But that by a compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to the government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government, and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
	Back then, the states had guts.
	They were standing up to the federal government.
	That's what our responsibility is now.
	We have to reignite the fire of the idea of state government and states' rights.
	And we need to kick the federal government out anytime they're acting out illegally.
	That is our only peaceful and known-to-work recourse.
	Hi folks, Dan Bedanti here, and I want to thank you all for joining us on this documentary movie, The American Police State.
	And we encourage you all to make copies of this film, get it viral.
	Again, ladies and gentlemen, there's no copyright law on this documentary, so make it viral.
	Make copies of it, give them out to your friends, your family, your neighbors, people in your church, people at your work, even local law enforcement agents.
	Hand this stuff out now, make copies, get this information viral quick, because our civil liberties and our security is at threat here.
	So I'm calling out all you law enforcement officers to avoid and stop any corruption that's going on in your department.
	The time is here and the time is now.
	Either you stand for the Republican freedom or you stand for corruption and tyranny.
	Our Republic and the well-being of America is in your hands.
	Remember, it's your duty to protect and serve the people and the Constitution, not the New World Order.
	Declaring war on a new world order.

▲