The Hypocrisy of the Police State Advocates

Ever notice how “gun control” advocates always pretend that they’re only violating the Constitution in order to reduce violent crime… yet their efforts are all centered around disarming NON-CRIMINAL American citizens?

Ask one of them why they’re so intent on violating the rights of people who have committed no crimes and they’ll pontificate about how a legally-obtained firearm can find its way into the wrong hands. Therefore ban and confiscate.

Engage that same person in a conversation about how dictatorial powers are (unconstitutionally=illegally) being given to the executive branch of government, and watch their attitude spin 180 degrees.

“Oh, it’s perfectly harmless to consolidate all the powers of a police state into the hands of one person, because only responsible, benevolent, humble idealists will ever be in a position to use them, hence they will only be used for good.”

So as to not cause a coronary event, I’ll just bring up one topic tonight: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).

What this illegal legislation does is give the individual in the Oval Office the approval of fellow criminals in Congress and the Courts to indefinitely detain  American citizens without trial. (If you don’t speak Legalese, read that: “throw your ass in prison until you die.”)

The wording of the NDAA was left deliberately vague so politicians can interpret it as they see fit. But one listed justification for the Storm Troopers hauling you away to never be seen again is if you’ve committed a “belligerent act.”

Under the rule of law, you’d have the benefit of a jury trial if accused, and a court would have to determine if you committed a “belligerent act.” In a police state, the dude with the power decides whether you’ve been naughty or nice.

Guess which system we have now?

Wanna guess who the globalists had in mind in pushing for this legislation? It wasn’t Islamic terrorists. When asked to define “belligerent act,” the politicians behind the NDAA balked, feigning ignorance. But after it was passed, our benevolent public servants released the START report, which on page 10 tells you who they consider the next terrorists:

Groups or individuals who are “reverent of individual liberty”, “suspicious of centralized federal authority”, who “pay with cash”, “travel illogical distances”, “stockpile food” and so on. 200 other such adjectives are listed that can define you as a suspected terrorist.

 

Why are militarized police not already kicking in doors and hauling “potential terrorists” away to detainment centers en masse? Because about three percent of the population is both armed and willing to fight the jackbooted goons when that happens.
Any mystery why the police state hypocrites are so worried about weapons in the hands of NON-CRIMINAL American citizens?

One thought on “The Hypocrisy of the Police State Advocates”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge