Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Was (9/11) The DeepState’s Reichstag?

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”- Cyril Connolly (1903 - 1974)

 

Was (9/11) The DeepState’s Reichstag?


By de Andréa

Opinion Editorialist for    
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 22, 2018



In 1933 the Reichstag fire was a disaster for the Communists in Germany because they were blamed for starting it. But it was a dream come true for Hitler and his cronies as it allowed them to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship almost overnight.

In 2001 the attack on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington was not only a horrifying event for America but it was a  disaster for the Middle East because there has been devastating war there ever since. But it was a dream come true for the DeepState and those who finance it, causing perpetual war and bankruptcy for the United States.

A clear parallel may exist in these historical events, and that is, that there has also been a cover-up, or at least a remarkable lack of interest by the authorities and the mainstream media in following-up the anomalies of 9/11 attack.  

In the view of the notable historian William Shirer and many others, it has been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" that on Feb. 27, 1933, a team of Hitler's commandos fanned out through the Reichstag (the German parliament  Government building), using incendiary fluids to quickly touch off a massive blaze. Before the fire had even died down, Hitler proclaimed that the outrage must have been the responsibility of the Communist Bolsheviks.

The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known. Nearly all those who knew about it are now dead, most of them killed by Hitler in the months that followed. Even at Nuremberg the mystery could not be entirely unraveled, though there is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends.

On the day following the fire, February 28, [Hitler] prevailed on President Hindenburg to sign a decree “for the Protection of the People and the State” suspending seven sections of the German constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. Described as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state, the decree laid down that:

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and phone communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations, as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Just as Hitler did in Germany in 1933 within weeks after the (9/11) attack the patriot Act was passed. The Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into criminals.

In addition, the decree authorized the Reich government to take over complete power in the federal states when necessary and imposed the death sentence for a number of crimes, including “serious disturbances of the peace” by armed persons.

Thus with one stroke Hitler was able not only to legally gag his opponents and arrest them at his will but, by making the trumped-up Communist threat "official," as it were, to throw millions of the middle class and the peasantry into a frenzy of fear that unless they voted for Nazi National Socialism at the elections a week hence, the Bolsheviks will likely take over. Some four thousand Communist officials and a great many Social Democrat and liberal leaders were arrested, including members of the Reichstag, who, according to the law, were immune from arrest. This was the first experience Germans had with Nazi terror backed up by the government. The parallels between the 1933 Reichstag Fire and the 9/11/01 attack on New York City and Washington are striking.

The lesson here is, that it is important to know when you have entered the hall of mirrors created by so-called intelligence operatives and security agencies. Why would a British journalist go out of his way to exonerate Hitler? It is hard to explain by any conventional analysis, yet I maintain that it can and does happen. Perhaps for the same sorts of reason that Americans like Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush, the founders of the Bush dynasty, worked so hard to provide funding for Hitler's brownshirts -- and for the same reason that many German intelligence operatives were brought into the US intelligence fold after WWII, to create the embryonic CIA.

It has now been more than seventy years since the Reichstag fire, so we have the benefit of some historical perspective. It has only been a little more than fifteen years since 9/11, so we're just starting to accumulate some of that same sense of perspective. Nevertheless, we can now see quite clearly that war was launched, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, and the attacks of 9/11 have been given as the justification. Speaking about American casualties in Iraq, President Bush stated on Nov. 4, 2003: "We are at war, and it is essential that the people of America not forget the lessons of September 11, 2001." This in spite of the fact that no credible evidence has emerged linking 9/11 to Iraq.

So here we have the first analogy to the Reichstag Fire: a campaign to scapegoat an entire population (in this case, Iraqis) for the purported actions of a few, and along with that, an aggressive campaign of warfare. And not only that, it has come to light that the Saudi Royal Family who are buddies of the entire Bush family actually financed the 9/11 attack. Moreover G W Bush covered it up by the missing 28 pages of the 9/11 Report.  Read about it here and here.

Another clear parallel that there has been a cover-up is for example, the insider trading that has been researched by Mike Ruppert, Tom Flocco and Kyle Hence. Obviously, if we want to know who was really responsible for the 9-11 attacks, it would be helpful to know who had managed to learn about them in advance. Yet, as Ruppert notes at his web site:


To quote 60 Minutes from Sept. 19, "Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market."
It is hard to believe that they missed:

 - A jump in UAL put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. [CBS News, Sept. 26]

- A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks. [CBS News, Sept. 26]
-
 No similar trading occurred on any other airlines. [Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel citing data from the CBO.]

ABC World News reported on Sept. 20, "Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant said, 'it's absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe."

How much money was involved? Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German Parliament responsible for oversight of Germany’s intelligence services estimated the worldwide amount at $15 billion, according to Tages Spiegel on Jan. 13. Other experts have estimated the amount at $12 billion....

Not a single U.S. or foreign investigative agency has announced any arrests or developments in the investigation of these trades, the most telling evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks. This, in spite of the fact that former Security and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas told Bloomberg News that regulators would "certainly be able to track down every trade."
As Ruppert also noted we know exactly where the trail was leading, when it suddenly went cold:

-the trading in United Airlines stock -- one of the most glaring clues -- was placed by Alex Brown the head of the firm Deutschebank until 1998. Alex Brown, became the executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard.

But beyond the cover-up and the political use and mis-use of 911, what evidence do we have of real US government complicity? As the Internet columnist David McGowan wrote:

let's start with what is perhaps the only incontrovertible evidence in the case our own observations, as witnesses, of what played out that day on live television.

Tens of millions of people across the country witnessed what happened, and had the images of that day seared into their memory. Such as the third building not even involved in the attack that mysteriously crumbled just as towers one and two. Indecently jet B fuel used in the month of  September burns at compressed pressures inside a jet engine at no more than 1500 degrees F not enough to melt the engine and especially the steel in the core of a building which melts a 2700 degrees F. More importantly jet B fuel burns at less than 600 degrees F at sea level atmospheric pressure. Steel doesn’t lose its integrity until higher than 700 degrees F, making it highly unlikely that the kerosene fuel inside the tanks of a commercial plane caused the buildings to come down the way they did. And the fact that an aluminum airliner could not possibly have crashed through the outer rings of the pentagon’s 2 foot reinforced concrete walls and leave no debris of an airliner on the scene such as engines, landing gear etcetera.  Moreover there was no fire, paper on desks was intact, no scorching. Where did 50,000 gal of fuel go? 

But that being said, what we want to focus on here is what we didn't see happen that day, because some of the most compelling evidence lies, strangely enough, in what no one saw happen.
No one, for example, saw any defensive measures taken during the entire time that the lengthy spectacle played out. None whatsoever.

No one saw any fighter jets scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft, though their locations and flight-paths were known and there was more than ample time for a military response which is normal protocol. No one saw any jets scrambled to secure the airspace over Washington DC, though at least one of the hijacked flights were known to be headed that way, and interceptors were sitting on the tarmac just minutes away from likely targets.

And strangely enough, no one saw or heard any demands by television media talking-heads for the military to respond in some capacity, or any questioning of why no response had yet materialized. Not after the first WTC tower was hit. Not after the second WTC tower was hit. Not even during the agonizingly long interval before the Pentagon was hit. Not even after the Pentagon was hit when everyone knew we were being attacked. Who knew it was over???

We were instead all assigned the task of sitting back in fear and watching helplessly as the attack continued and the death toll mounted, encouraged to feel powerless not only as individuals, but as a nation -- as if we had no choice but to participate only as passive spectators, watching dumfounded as the carnage unfolded.

Yet, in the strange lack of response of the US military on 9-11, we have our first evidence of the actual complicity of the US government. For how could the hijackers themselves have arranged for the failure to respond to the Pentagon attack? As Bykov & Israel noted in their groundbreaking article "Guilty for 9-11 Bush, Rumsfeld, Meyer":

Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures, and possible hijackings, are everyday emergencies.... these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules of protocol.

Bykov & Israel went on to argue quite persuasively that because of the hierarchical and distributed nature of the chain of command of the US military, it is impossible that these procedures would have failed so spectacularly unless there were explicit orders, right from the top, voiding standard response procedures.

The Reichstag fire gives us another clue as to how to understand the events of 9/11, look very carefully at the alleged perpetrator of the crime. What sort of patsy has been put forward as responsible for the disaster?

Just as in the case of the Reichstag Fire, there was a rush to judgment on the part of the US government and the complicit media after the catastrophe:  it was immediately announced that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida was responsable. Within days, names and photos of the hijackers were released, and the evidence connecting them to Al Qaida was claimed to be beyond dispute. Yet details emerged painfully and slowly, in self-contradictory fits and starts. Only now, fifteen years later, do we have a reasonably complete narrative from official sources, regarding the alleged mechanisms by which the hijackings were organized and carried out. According to this tale, mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (under the watchful eye of Osama Bin Laden) assembled a team of terrorists headed by Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh. The hijackers went to the United States for flight training, and funds were supplied by a paymaster named Mustafa Ahmad Al-Hiwasi.

It was reported by two airport towers watching radar that the planes were flying at speeds approaching 500 mph when they hit the towers. Several airline pilots were interviewed including one that actually flew two of the exact United Air Lines jets in the past. All of them said that a commercial jet is not designed to fly at those speeds below 10,000 feet. They all agreed including a Boeing Aircraft engineer, they all said that the planes would begin to disintegrate below 10,000 feet. (The atmosphere is much too dense). The Twin Towers are approximately 900 feet. ‘Something’ hit the towers but it wasn’t commercial airliners. I know some of this first hand because I use to work for United Air Lines in the early 70's and was on the first United test flight for the newly delivered Boeing 747 from Seattle Washington.

Just as Hitler did in Germany in 1933 within weeks after the (9/11) attack the U.S. patriot Act was passed, and in the name of national security signed by G.W Bush on October 26, 2001 without one member of congress reading it. The Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. and included warrantless searches and seizures. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into criminals.  The Patriot Act violates virtually every one of our rights.

THE BOTTOM LINE:  So in my opinion, the events of 911 were orchestrated to create feelings of fear and helplessness in the face of surprise attack -- fears which were later exploited by the Bush administration's imagery that the waning Iraqi nuclear weapons program or WMD, could be restarted and then unveiled by a mushroom cloud over a US city to satisfy the greed of the Military Industrial Complex’s taste for money blood and war, which in my opinion will never be over. There will be perpetual war until ‘We The People’ cry out for peace at any cost, even at the expense of freedom…we will even except tyranny. 

One can be made to voluntarily swallow poison if it is given just a little at a time…

Thanks for listening my friend. Now go do the right thing, pray and fight for truth and freedom.  If you would like to write me direct with a question or a comment you can contact me at writedeandrea@hotmail.com
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your family and friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2005 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.



Thursday, March 15, 2018

82 Shot, 15 Dead In A City With No Guns

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”- Cyril Connolly (1903 - 1974)

 

 82 Shot, 15 Dead In A City With No Guns

 

By de Andréa

Opinion Editorialist for    
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 15, 2018


82 Shot, 15 Dead in a City in one weekend with the Strictest Gun Laws in the United States, and where it is not even legal to have a gun -- and 0 shot in a city in years with only one gun law, and that law is…’everyone must have a gun’.   

What is obviously wrong with this picture?

Chicago, IL — Inside the city limits of Chicago, not a single gun shop can be found — they’ve been illegally and unconstitutionally outlawed. With its nearly 3 million residents, the city of Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in the nation.  Gun laws were so strict, in fact, that in 2010, the US Supreme Court intervened saying the laws were going too far. However, corrupt city lawmakers “kept the ban.” The governments don’t care about Constitutional law any more, especially the Supreme Court. So it’s no wonder some people don’t care about the law. The law has become a joke and the first ones to laugh are the criminals.
The ban on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and nowhere to purchase ammo or guns makes Chicago one of the toughest places in the country to obtain a weapon, legally.
With these strict laws, how on earth are there still guns in Chicago? Oh I forgot to mention… when you take guns away, only cops and criminals have guns.  Law abiding citizens are left helpless to defend themselves against the cops’ or the criminals.
Gun violence in Chicago over the fourth of July weekend 2015 reached near war zone proportions with 82 people being shot between 4 p.m. Thursday and 3:30 a.m. Monday morning. 15 of these 82 shootings were fatal. Tragically, even a 7-year-old child’s life was taken by one of these bullets. The statistics today are even worse.
On the following Monday, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy blamed the shootings on the fact that ‘people’ were getting too many guns.  It all comes down to guns. Too many guns coming in, too little punishment going out, said McCarthy.
So what he is really saying is even though generally keeping and bearing a fire arm is a God given right, anyone with a gun should be punished for just exercising ones rights.  
But how is all this gun violence possible since guns are basically banned in Chicago? Is the law failing to stop criminals from breaking it? How could that be? Doesn’t the law stop crime? Well…Actually no! If it did we would have no crime.
Of course, there are two sides to this debacle. Gun rights advocates state the obvious when they say that restricting the possession of guns only keeps guns out of the hands of people who actually ‘obey the law’, which criminals don’t.
The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey,” said Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.
 Unfortunately, this sentiment is a popular notion among those who would take away the ability of people to defend themselves. The incredibly flawed logic behind the utopian idea of no guns no crime is obviously ludicrous.
Robotic gun control advocates are saying that since this approach has miserably failed, if we just apply it to the entire nation, (more of the same) then it would somehow magically work.
But the robots are wrong my friend.
Of course, a society without guns sounds fantastic and in a perfect utopian world, it would be nice not to need a gun. However, you and I do not live in utopia.
As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life. Those who would attempt to stop you from defending yourself, are attacking the very right from which all other rights are derived, protection of one’s own life.
What advocates of gun control really mean when they say they want to ban guns is that they only want the government to have guns. After all, who would enforce the ban on guns, and how would it be enforced — without guns?
Instead of attacking the hundred and fifty million people in America who legally own guns and who don’t go around shooting children, we should look at the reason that causes people to kill one another.  The real deterrent against criminals with guns is a law abiding citizen with a gun.  When the criminals learn that if they use a gun in the commission of a crime, they should be prepared to die, that’s a deterrent. A sign that says this is a GUN FREE ZONE is an invitation.  
Contrary to the fear mongering, most murders are not committed by otherwise law-abiding gun owners who snap and grab the nearest gun. Studies show that the majority of murders committed are by those who already have a criminal record, in other words, criminals.
THE BOTTOM LINE:  So stricter gun laws or especially bans only ensure that only criminals will have the guns, as in Chicago. Not to mention the fact that a criminal government will also have guns. The only people left without any protection at all are the majority of people like you and me. This misinformation of ‘less guns,’ ‘less crime’, will only lead to less freedom and more tyranny. 

Thanks for listening my friend. Now go do the right thing, pray and fight for truth and freedom.  If you would like to write me direct with a question or a comment you can contact me at writedeandrea@hotmail.com

- de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your family and friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2005 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Didn’t Yo Mama Eva Tell Ya: “Ta Neva Take A Sign To A Gunfight”??

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”- Cyril Connolly (1903 - 1974)

 

Didn’t Yo Mama Eva Tell Ya: “Ta Neva Take A Sign To A Gunfight”??

 


By de Andréa

Opinion Editorialist for    
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 14, 2018


Didn’t your mama ever tell you, never take a sigh to a gunfight?  Probably not, because no one in her day and in their right mind would ever think of doing such a dumb thing.

When I was a kid we didn’t exactly take our guns to school, but on the weekends or during the summer, from the time I was 12, my best friend Johnny and I would take 16 gauge shot guns down to the bay and shoot ducks or take 22 caliber rifles and go into the fields near where we lived and shoot rabbits.

And I know what you’re going to say.  Well…but you lived in the country or the woods, right!  No my friend, we lived right in the middle of town, in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country.

Yes the times were different then, but people were the same. What really has changed is education. We had a scopious well-rounded education. What the poor rich kids of today have, is a short sighted narrow-minded programed indoctrination.  They can’t think for themselves or outside the box as they say. And neither can their parents for that matter.

No, my mama would never have told me not to take a sign to a gunfight. She might have told me not to take a knife to a gunfight, but a sign??? Well, of course this was 66 years ago they didn’t have GUN FREE ZONES back then and certainly no stupid signs that read THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE.  What would be the purpose of a sign like that? Maybe to give away free guns…Ya think. 

But then when I discovered that this sign business was supposed to be a defense or a protection of some kind then I understood why one might take a sign to a gun fight.  Something to stand behind when you shoot back, right?  Oh no! No shooting back. You see you are just supposed to hold the sign or display the sign, hoping the gunfighter will see it and…and what?  Shoot you, that’s what.

No wonder my mama would never have thought of doing such a dumb thing as that. But I am told that today’s mamas and papas do ‘just’ that. Moreover they do that at their kid’s schools. And they can’t understand why the signs don’t stop the gunfighters from shooting their kid’s. And then I discovered that these gunfighters actually thought the signs meant that there were no guns at the schools that displayed these signs, that the signs didn’t mean ‘free guns’ at all, they actually meant “No Guns Here A Good Place To Shoot” .  

Why would anyone do that? They probably don’t have alligators there either but I bet there are no signs that read ALLAGATOR FREE ZONE. Maybe these kids’ parents have not been educated, and instead they have been brainwashed with a short sighted narrow-minded indoctrination as well, and can’t think for themselves either.

THE BOTTOM LINE: It sure is too bad that all these parents had to lose their kids because the only defense at their school was a sign instead of a gun. Now they have their kid’s marching and carrying…you guess it… more SIGNS!

When I was a kid my parents would have taken me out of a school like that at least until they had some security instead of signs, someone with a gun to protect me from someone with a gun. You see that is what real education will do for you instead of robotic indoctrination. Don’t be a Lemming, think for yourself…

Thanks for listening my friend. Now go do the right thing, pray and fight for truth and freedom.  If you would like to write me direct with a question or a comment you can contact me at writedeandrea@hotmail.com
- de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your family and friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2005 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

New California and Maryland Laws Violate 4th Amendment

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”- Cyril Connolly (1903 - 1974)

 

New California and Maryland Laws Violate 4th Amendment  

 



By de Andréa

Opinion Editorialist for    
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 13, 2018


States write laws to force homeschoolers to submit to warrantless home searches.

I hope, like me, you can see down the road to where this is going my friend.  It just reinforces what I have been saying that the DeepState behind our state and Federal governments are totally trashing the U.S. and State Constitutions. The DeepState recognizes Constitutional law - unless they can find a reason not to. E.g. the 1st, 2nd, 4th 5th 6th 8th 9th 10th oh well…the entire Constitution is a risk.

In this excuse to attack the 4th and 5th Amendments, and force citizens to give into the pressures of forced State indoctrination of their children, state lawmakers are now pushing legislation that will force homeschooling families to subject themselves to warrantless searches, home visits, and a slew of regulations. As I said, the Constitution is recognized unless there is a reason not to…


Read the 4th and 5th Amendments, finish reading the article, then see for yourself if there is a Constitutional violation.
The Fourth Amendment:  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.
The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise  infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, on in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due  process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Maryland — with the unchecked and overreaching power of the Child Protective Services CPS, lawmakers in California and Maryland have introduced bills that will allow the state to arbitrarily without notice intrude in the lives of innocent families, keeping tabs on them, force entry into their home without a warrant, and destroying their right to privacy guaranteed under the 4th Amendment. No probable cause here!
County Boards of Education – Home Instruction Program – Observation of Instruction and Reporting of Abuse and Neglect, lays out some fairly ominous requirements that will persecute otherwise entirely innocent families for doing nothing other than teaching their children at home.
These bills lay out the framework for forced home inspections in which state Gestapo agents will force the entry into a family’s home multiple times a year—unannounced—and observe and inspect the home. This is something we fought against in WWII my friend.
This bill would require parents to annually inform their county school boards of their homeschool child’s primary instructor and of the primary location where homeschooling is taking place each year. Furthermore, in order to legally homeschool in the state of Maryland, parents would be required to allow a representative of the county board to observe instruction at the family’s primary homeschooling location at least twice a year. Finally, this bill would require county school board employees who observe a family’s instruction and who believe a homeschool child has been subjected to abuse or neglect to report their suspicion to the proper authorities.
This bill, like the similar one proposed in the Nazi, Communist state of California last month, they say was a reaction to the horrific scene that unfolded in mainstream media in the case of David and Louise Turpin. The couple who is facing 12 counts of torture after police learned that their 13 children were severely malnourished, forced to stay chained to their beds, and living in horrific conditions, among other forms of torture that have been ongoing for several years.
The DeepState will look for any excuse to destroy the security of a free State. This my friend is what the 2nd Amendment was written for. “being necessary to the security of a free state…”
Because the Turpin’s were homeschoolers, the state now assumes all homeschoolers are criminals. It’s the same Gestapo mentality that says that because a criminal with a gun, shot a bunch of children, therefore anyone with a gun is a criminal. Which as I said our 2nd Amendment rights are also protected unless there is a reason not to…
"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." -- Thomas Jefferson to Uriah Forrest, 1787. Papers, 12:477.

Even though the problem of child abuse has nothing at all to do with homeschooling, lawmakers across the country are now using this moment to advance their agenda of tyranny by demonizing parents who wish to teach their children outside of the state institutions of indoctrination. Watch for this same type of tyranny in the name of safety in your state.
When asked why he proposed the bill, HB 1798’s conspirator, Delegate Frant Turner said it was in response to “recent news about homeschoolers,” indicating that he is also exploiting this tragedy to push for more government control and less Constitutional rights.
As TFTP reported last month, lawmakers in the state of California are now pushing for families who homeschool their children to be subject to involuntary home visits from state employees—treating those parents with the same oversight and involvement that they would give parents who have abused their children—just like Maryland wants to do.
The new regulations could consist of forced meetings with child protective services and other government agencies, which would leave the burden on the parents to prove to the government that they are fit to be parents who homeschool their children, according to the state’s guidelines.
The audacity of the state to require that your children be inspected by them to prove that you are not guilty of child abuse is stunning and speaks to the deterioration of our constitutional right in this cast the 4th and 5th Amendments. One is now guilty until proven innocent.
As the Washington Examiner reported, if this increase in government overreach becomes law, it would reduce the valid legal option of homeschooling from a fundamental parental right, to direct the education and school choice for children, to compelled consent to government intrusion upon the sanctity and privacy of the home and school choice.”
Currently, only about 3.4% of children ages 5 – 17 are homeschooled in the United States even though, studies have shown that homeschooled children typically outperform their peers from both private and public schools.
Write your state legislators here, in Maryland and California and tell them to reject California Assembly Bill (AB) 2756 and in Maryland Assembly Bill HB 1798, and to begin obeying the Constitution and make laws supporting freedom instead of trying to destroy it.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Homeschooling allows for a child to maximize their potential to become creative, adaptive, free thinkers. This, in turn, creates people who are not conditioned to think within the limited confines of an archaic oligarchy and crumbling system, but who are capable of adapting and applying new thoughts, ideas, and solutions to any situation encountered.
The flexibility of being able to cater education to a particular learning style, as well as a child’s particular interests, enables valuable insight.
This insight and creativity, however, is a danger to the DeepState. If the state is unable to control, indoctrinate and brainwash the entire population into believing in a certain system, people begin questioning that system. When people question the system—instead of simply blaming it on the other party—the state loses its control. When the state loses its control, they lose their power, their ability to extract wealth from masses, and their support for spreading the empire of tyranny.
Independent Freethinkers are a danger to the DeepState tyranny, and whether or not the lawmakers in California and Maryland will admit it, violating the Constitutional rights of homeschoolers is not in the interest of public safety. It is in the interest of spreading despotism.
We would do well to take a look back and pay close attention to what a few people that developed and fought for our freedom said: And note that this was a time when the DeepState brainwashing had not yet taken control of the masses.  
Abraham Lincoln once said, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”

“If you want good security, go to prison, you will have everything you could want except freedom” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- Opinion by - John Jay, First chief justice US Supreme Court.

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine
"
It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

Thanks for listening my friend. Now go do the right thing, pray and fight for truth and freedom.  If you would like to write me direct with a question or a comment you can contact me at writedeandrae@hotmail.com
- de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your family and friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2005 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.