The CDC medical police state: the right to detain anyone

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

—Understand the implications of new CDC rules, if you want to know where the medical dictatorship is heading.

Arbitrary apprehension of citizens, detainment, forced medical treatment, vaccination.

Let me paint a scenario:

You live in a polluted city, so you have a low-level cough. On your flight to another state, the cough becomes worse because the air in the plane cabin is foul. Unknown to you, a passenger complains to a flight attendant. The passenger is a typical meddler. When you arrive at your destination, a health-agency employee is waiting at the gate for you. He apprehends you and takes you to a room, to decide whether you have a communicable disease. His first standard question—are you up to date on your vaccinations? And things go downhill from there…

It can get worse: the same story as above, except when the detained passenger is injected with a load of vaccines, he then becomes very ill, or even dies. Using plane passenger lists, health authorities search out and detain everyone who was on the flight, claiming the deceased passenger died as a result of a disease—not the vaccinations—and now all the passengers will be detained and “treated,” because they are “infected.”

The CDC is doubling down.

The agency is on the verge of expanding its power to detain and force medical treatment on anyone.

The new proposed CDC regulations are contained in the Federal Register dated August 15, 2016, under the heading, “Control of Communicable Diseases—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”

Reading between the lines, the stark message is: any person in the US suspected of carrying a serious communicable disease, even if his disease is in an “invisible” stage, can be detained, isolated, quarantined, and medically treated (e.g., forcibly vaccinated). Upon conditional release, the person can be monitored, and this can involve wearing electronic tracking devices.

Those are the broad strokes of the new policy, and, obviously, they’re broad enough to cover anyone.

Tortured linguistic gibberish from the CDC guarantees that any American can be assessed with a disease, justifying arrest. Force yourself to wade through the next paragraph, and you’ll get a feel for the lunatic bureaucratic doublespeak, and the loopholes through which the government can drive a truck:

“…to authorize the quarantine, isolation, or conditional release of an individual traveling interstate, CDC must reasonably believe that the individual is infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage…As defined by the statute, a ‘qualifying stage’ means that the communicable disease is in ‘a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals’ or ‘a communicable stage’…it is necessary to define the precommunicable stage of a communicable disease to adequately inform the public of when quarantine, isolation, or conditional release may be authorized. HHS/CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent and ending upon the individual entering or reentering the communicable stage of the disease or, if the individual does not enter the communicable stage, the latest date at which the individual could reasonably be expected to have the potential to enter or reenter the communicable stage…”

Is that clear as mud? The “qualifying stage” of a disease? Translation: “we can arrest you whenever we want to, and we can say you have a disease.”

Here’s more garble from the CDC. Notice the absurd Orwellian definition of “agreement”:

“…HHS/CDC believes that it is important to define for the public what is meant by the term ‘apprehension.’ Apprehension means the temporary taking into custody of an individual or group for purposes of determining whether quarantine, isolation, or conditional release is warranted…When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer….In certain circumstances, the individual may remain apprehended pending confirmation that he or she is not infected or not reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease…Generally, however, HHS/CDC does not expect that the typical public health apprehension will last longer than 72 hours…HHS/CDC is proposing a definition for ‘agreement’ which refers to an agreement entered into between the CDC and an individual expressing agreement between the parties that the individual will observe public health measures authorized under this part, as the CDC considers reasonably necessary to protect the public’s health, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”

Translation: Any person can be arrested, held, and vaccinated, without his consent. That’s what “agreement” means.

And finally: “HHS/CDC has proposed a definition for ‘electronic or internet-based monitoring’ that defines this term as referring to mechanisms or technologies allowing for the temporary public health supervision of an individual under conditional release, including electronic mail, SMS texts, video conference or webcam technologies, integrated voice-response systems, entry of information into a web-based forum, wearable tracking technologies, and other mechanisms or technologies as determined by the Director or supervising health authority.”

Translation: Once released from custody, an individual can be monitored electronically, including by the attachment of tracking devices.

To prepare the public for this version of fascism, the CDC has been promoting a whole series of phony epidemics over decades, using scare tactics. SARS, MERS, bird flu, Swine Flu, West Nile, Ebola, Zika—they’ve all been duds. The CDC has only cared about one thing in this campaign: softening up the public to accept a medical police state.

And as this new document indicates, the CDC is turning the screw several times in that direction.

The Matrix Revealed

In 1987, I began warning the public that medical ops are the most dangerous, because they appear to have no political partisan bias. They’re promoted on the basis of “we’re the healers and we only want to protect you.”

Well, what I’ve discussed above is ultimately the kind of protection they’re talking about at the CDC.

And you can bet that a detained adult who hasn’t taken his recommended slew of vaccines would be looked upon as an outlier, a person whose “medical condition” could be leveraged into multiple shots in the arm, before being dumped back out into the street.

If you think I’m exaggerating what the CDC would actually do to you or anyone else, keep two things in mind. One, this is a step-by-step long-term op. A nibble on your freedom today, another nibble tomorrow. And then, a few years from now, you’ll look back and see how far they’ve come.

And two, as an illustration, how many people believed, ten years ago, that the state of California would push through a bill (SB277) mandating the full CDC toxic load of vaccines for every child attending public or private school? How many people believed the state would wipe out the religious and personal-belief exemptions, or relegate the concept of informed consent to the dustbin of history?

The enemies of freedom are writing the future at this moment and erasing the past.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

25 Rules of Disinformation

Kristan T. Harris | American Intelligence Report

Can You Identify Which of these Rules are Still in Use by Our Leaders Today?

25 Rules of Disinformation – Possible rules of Operation Mocking Bird


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

The complete idiot’s guide to Donald Trump’s Campaign

By Eddie Zipperer
                                                                                      Getty Images

If you operate under the assumption that helium is heavier than the air around you, you’re going to lose your balloon. If you’re smart, you won’t lose many balloons before you change your assumption. If you don’t change your assumption, you’re going to keep losing balloons and start to look pretty stupid in the process.

But it looks like you can’t teach old pundits new paradigms. After presidential candidate Donald Trump finished in second in the Iowa Republican caucus, the media went straight to work picking out a coffin for his campaign, battling it out to see who could write the most definitive obituary. After months of being wrong about Trump, something finally happened to make them look right: All the Iowa polls were wrong — Trump lost! Sure, he scored more Iowa votes than anyone ever — excepting Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), who won Iowa — but he lost. Trump is a loser and this proves it.It’s hard to blame them for trying to spike the ball in Trump’s face. You’ve seen it before. Your favorite NFL team is down by 50 points. The team finally gets a first down, and the halfback celebrates like he just won the Super Bowl. Everyone except him just laughs and shakes their head. That’s what opinion writers like David Brooks — who wrote a piece declaring that “Donald Trump Isn’t Real” in the aftermath of Iowa — looked like last week. CNN ran a piece by Michael D’Antonio headlined “Donald Trump is a loser.” And the list of similar sentiments is long.

The pressure of being wrong about Trump over and over was building, so when it appeared they were finally right about something, the release was earthshaking.

Last July, I asked a political science professor at an Ivy League university how Trump would appeal to the electorate in a general election. He told me that “It’s a moot point” because “Trump has no chance of surviving the primaries.”

I predicted Trump’s demise more than once myself since last summer. The difference between me and the rest of them is that I threw out my broken election assumptions and started holding tight to the string of my balloon. For anyone interested, below is a guide on how to be right about Trump next time. It all starts with rejecting the bad assumptions and embracing the good ones.

Bad assumption: Manners are of the utmost importance. Every time Trump utters a naughty word, the media go nuts. The story was everywhere on Tuesday (you know the one; he repeated an audience member’s use of the word “pussy”). I heard more than one talking head predict that Trump would lose the New Hampshire primary when voters found out. Didn’t happen; never will. Trump doesn’t do manners, and his supporters don’t want him to.

Good Assumption: Every time Trump says something that no other politician ever would, he scores points. Politicians are well-mannered in front of voters and employ others to do their dirty work. Take former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), for instance. He talks a big game about the president being mature and the presidency as being above Trump’s behavior. Sounds nice, but then consider the truth lurking behind Bush. According to Larry Sabato, “Jeb Bush is Meaner Than He Looks.” Or recall former presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) lecturing us on maturity during the same debate where his communications director, Sergio Gor, tweeted a copy of Carly Fiorina’s closing statement that had been left in the hotel copier.

Bad assumption: An ideological misstep will dissolve Trump’s support. Most Republican voters despise eminent domain. I despise eminent domain. In Saturday night’s debate, Trump defended eminent domain. He didn’t try to “Rubio” his way out of it with prepared sound bites. He didn’t try to muddy the water and make people question whether he actually supported it. He was totally straight about it.

Good assumption: Honesty transcends ideology. Voters would rather disagree with a straight-shooter than agree with a political wind-tester. We’ve seen too many politicians run as conservatives and then prove not to be. Voters have become suspect of politicians with ideologies that try too hard to match the electorate.

Bad assumption: Trump is unelectable in November. Uh-huh. Just like he could never win the primaries. Every time a pundit says Trump is unelectable in November, there’s a good chance he or she also wrote him off in the GOP primary a few months ago and at every step along the way. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. Just ask Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

Good assumption: Trump is a winner.

Zipperer is assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College.

Trump Tells the Truth About Interventionism

Opposes endless war supported by Clinton, Rubio and Cruz

Kurt Nimmo |

A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good


In The Pen by JD Hall

December 23, 2015 Leave a Comment

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

911 CIA Whistle Blower Was in Prison for a Year under the Patriot Act

Susan Lindauer worked for the CIA. She was a whistle blower who approached Congress through the proper channels and was then charged under the Patriot Act for sedition. She spent one year of her life in prison on an Air Force base without ever knowing what the charges were against her. We are living in a police state.

“”EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers an explosive, high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warning of 9/11 and an insider’s look at Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence, told by one of the very few U.S. Assets covering Iraq before the War. It reveals the depths of deception by leaders in Washington and London to promote a successful image of their terrorism policy, and the shocking brutality to suppress the truth of their failures from Americans and the world community.”

Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

Why We should Never forget 9/11/01

by Rocco J. Piserchia

We should never forget the events of September 11, 2001 because no other day has shaped US foreign and domestic policies more post World War II. After 9/11 the US has been involved in wars and military aggression in the Middle East and we have seen the transformation of life in the USA to a police state. While the transformation of the US into a domestic police state began well before 9/11 the adoption of the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) and numerous federal laws beginning with the Patriot Act have accelerated the transformation of the USA into a domestic police state. Therefore it’s critically important to understand the significance of what transpired on 9/11and who was responsible.

Everyone believes that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the work of a conspiracy. Either 19 Muslims led by a man on dialysis planned and executed the most horrific terrorist attacks in US history – or others were involved and responsible.

There is no evidence that proves Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible. While the US claims that confessions were recorded by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay all of these tapes were destroyed. Furthermore the 2 co-chairs of the 911 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton went public to say that there was obstruction of justice from the CIA that prevented the 911 Commission from obtaining answers and information they requested. The documentary 911: Press for Truth details the battle that 911 victims’ family members had to endure to get the federal government to agree to conduct an investigation. This documentary also exposes how the 911 Commission itself was severely compromised from it’s formation to their final report.

For example, the final report did not even discuss how World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) was destroyed. WTC 7 was a 47 story building that was not hit by a plane but fell into it’s own footprint after 5:00 PM on 9/11/01.  The 911 Commission Report held no one at any level of government accountable –  no one in the military, the FBI, the CIA, NORAD or in any branch of the government was charged with criminal negligence.  No one even lost his job over 911. 

Massive physical evidence does not support the official explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers. The official explanation is that the Twin Towers suffered structural damage due to the impact of the planes which caused a pancake collapse. However the towers were constructed to withstand a direct hit by a jumbo jet and no pancake collapse would explain how tons of concrete were pulverized. Steven Jones of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth found nano thermite in the WTC debris. While jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel, molten steel was found underneath the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

The documentary 911 Mysteries – Demolitions carefully examines the evidence to demonstrate that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.

Finally the documentary Loose Change investigates the events of 911 and interprets them within the historic context of a false flag attack. “… When governments or organizations (usually connected to the former) stage … attacks on their own or foreign soil with the purpose of placing the blame on a desirable enemy foreign or domestic, one who has otherwise done no wrong. Essentially a setup, it provides the government entity with an excuse via fabricated evidence in complicity with media to fulfill its various agendas (i.e. war or law making)…”

If you have difficulty thinking that elements of the US federal government would deliberately execute a plan to murder US citizens for certain political goals please consider Operation Northwoods (declassified report) and also consider that the Gulf of Tonkin attack which launched US involvement in the Vietnam war never occurred – the Gulf of Tonkin attack was fabricated. So the Viet Nam war that resulted in the deaths of 58,000 US military and 300,000 wounded was based upon the lie of an attack that never actually happened.

The documentary Lose Change Final Cut provides additional proof that the terrorists attacks of 911 were perpetrated by criminal elements of the US government.

We should never forget 911. We should understand that the official explanations are not true and we should demand answers. The perpetrators of the 911 attacks have not been held accountable. By questioning what actually happened on 911 we can help prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future.