Military Quietly Grants Itself the Power to Police the Streets Without Local or State Consent

[chatnoir]

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/military-quietly-grants-itself-power-police-streets-without-local-or-state-consent

headline:

Military Quietly Grants Itself the Power to Police the Streets Without
Local or State Consent

The lines between the military and law enforcement have blurred even
further.
May 15, 2013 | Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to
date with the latest headlines via email.
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the
nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our
local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police
departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the
government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training,
incentives offered in the ongoing “war on drugs.” For the average
citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev
brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully
outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced
to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few
subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense
Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly
granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining
prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in
place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the
inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the
event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal
military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency
circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible
and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the
situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to
quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law
professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab
by the military.” He says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it
violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under
civilian control. ... (cont)

[Werner]

Welcome to the American police state.
http://www.EndIt.info

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
wrote:

>Welcome to the American police state.
> http://www.EndIt.info

I it is nice to see one thing at least that we agree on!

"Endit", on the other hand, is just the same old,
same old, Ayn Rand tripe.

By the way, the people who would most suffer if the
Libertarian party actually achieved its goal of anarchy
would be the wealthiest, because they're outnumbered.
You don't really want anarchy. You only want it for the
wealthy so that they can ride roughshod over everybody
unopposed even more than they're already doing. You
do want to keep the laws that stop the unwealthy from
taking retribution though, because if they had anarchy
they would immediately have at their hands a means
to fight back. I guess that might be called "selective
libertarianism".

[brian]

I don't believe that the rich want anarchy or any other change. They
want, for us, distraction and division. They want what we have now. So
far we are divided and distracted. Few of the people see who is the
real enemy, and it is not the government per say. Granted government
does their work, but government is not the driver of our problems. It
really is class warfare.............

[Werner]

You keep ignoring the glaring fact that no libertarians are in Congress. Ergo, it's my guess that militarizing the police is something your statists are doing to protect the status quo from resistance to obedience. What is your guess? Do you really actually think libertarians are taking over? Lets see... Authoritarian anarchists. What a concept! By the way, libertarians are not anarchists. It may be time to inform yourself. The institutions of tyranny are massing. Soon you may actually choose resistance or even prefer anarchy.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Links.shtml

[Werner]

Is government ever the driver? Or it is always the tool of drivers?

[chatnoir]

On May 18, 10:01 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> You keep ignoring the glaring fact that no libertarians are in Congress. Ergo, it's my guess that militarizing the police is something your statists are doing to protect the status quo from resistance to obedience. What is your guess? Do you really actually think libertarians are taking over? Lets see... Authoritarian anarchists. What a concept! By the way, libertarians are not anarchists.

No they are little selfish babies!

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
wrote:

>You keep ignoring the glaring fact that no libertarians are in Congress. Ergo, it's my guess that militarizing the police is something your statists are doing to protect the status quo from resistance to obedience. What is your guess? Do you really actually think libertarians are taking over? Lets see... Authoritarian anarchists. What a concept! By the way, libertarians are not anarchists. It may be time to inform yourself. The institutions of tyranny are massing. Soon you may actually choose resistance or even prefer anarchy.
>http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Links.shtml

If there are libertarians in congress now or later, I certainly
hope they remain a tiny minority.

I don't think I'd choose (active) resistance since I'm
unlikely to generate enough enthusiasm about the
likelihood of my influencing change to get me off my butt.
I'm just a "mattress socialist", even more of a layabout
than an "armchair socialist". As to "anarchy", I'm not
dumb enough to choose that.

Libertarians aren't really anarchists either, as you note.
They talk against the rule of law in general, and they
therefore sound a lot like anarchists, but they really only
want those laws removed that get in their own way, or,
if they're patsies, in the way of those they regard as a
"natural aristocracy" that deserves to own just about
everything because they're good at grabbing stuff, while
everybody else deserves to own just about nothing.

[Werner]

Where in those links did you see "natural aristocracy"?

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
wrote:

>Where in those links did you see "natural aristocracy"?

I really wish you'd include some fragment of a post to which
you're responding before you reply. Try Forte Agent - it was
only about $30 last I looked, and it makes newsgroups easier.

Libertarianism, which says that those who can take the most
should be allowed to take it unrestrained, are a supposed
(within the pure capitalist world-view) "natural aristocracy",
whether they use the term or not. The term was coined, I
believe, by Thomas Jefferson who of course included
himself in that number, though he was born rich, lived a life of
self-indulgence, and died in bankruptcy.

[Alias]

On 5/19/2013 12:34 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> Where in those links did you see "natural aristocracy"?
>
>
> I really wish you'd include some fragment of a post to which
> you're responding before you reply

Google Groups allows quoting. Werner just chooses not to do it.
Thunderbird is free but I guess using an application is just too much
for Werner.

--
Alias

[rumpelstiltskin]

It's slightly annoying if I look at the posts sorted
by date first, as I did yesterday because I expected
Werner might respond to a post of mine that was a
response to a post of his. Werner had several new
posts yesterday. I have him killfiled but not nuked,
since he's always off in what is IMV his little world
of libertarianism, not participating in discussions
other than as a launching pad for libertarian doctrine.
Because of that, I can't always tell which of his new
posts sorted by date is a response to a post of
mine even when I look at the text of each. In this
case though, he did mention "natural aristocracy"
from my post which made it more obvious than it
is if he doesn't mention anything at all from a post
to which he's ostensibly responding.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:04:36 AM UTC-7, Werner wrote:
> Is government ever the driver? Or it is always the tool of drivers?

It is aways the tool.

Governments, like corporations, are not people. They are organizations.
The structure of an organization may be such that a person's will is
amplified or suppressed. At its best our govnerment doesn't respond to
the will of any individual but only to the aggregate will of the people
as unvarnished by systems designed to bend that will.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:44:57 AM UTC-7, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> It's slightly annoying if I look at the posts sorted

> by date first, as I did yesterday because ...

You hold others responsible for your choices?
Usenet was designed to be tree threaded so one
could follow the threads and not waste bandwidth
on duplicate text. Now no one cares about bandwidth
but the extra noise in the thread is a waste of time
just because people have viewers that sort by time and
removes context.

[Werner]

Actually, libertarians think those who make it should be able to keep it. Taking and making are different. Taking is not making. Check the dictionary.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:47:59 AM UTC-7, Werner wrote:
> Actually, libertarians think those who make it should be able to keep it. Taking and making are different. Taking is not making. Check the dictionary.

Libertarians don't know the difference between taking and making.
For them "Making" includes hiring others who do the actual making.

[Alias]

Who are you replying to? It isn't clear.

--
Alias

[rumpelstiltskin]

If other viewers, looking at the posts sorted by
thread, open a post that doesn't include anything
from the post to which it's supposed to be a reply,
they'll likely also have to look back at the previous
message. unless the thread had already been of
particular interest to them. If the previous message
is long, they'll also have to hunt for what in that
message prompted the reply.

If they want to bother, that is.

[Werner]

What a dumb comment.

Isn't that what society and efficient economy is all about? What is your alternative to hiring people to make things? When you want your car fixed or built do you expect it be done for nothing? Did you work for nothing? Do you know many people who do stuff for nothing? If people make stuff for nothing we call them slaves.

Now contrast this with the concept of 'taking', if you can.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
wrote:

>What a dumb comment.
>
>Isn't that what society and efficient economy is all about? What is your alternative to hiring people to make things? When you want your car fixed or built do you expect it be done for nothing? Did you work for nothing? Do you know many people who do stuff for nothing? If people make stuff for nothing we call them slaves.
>
>Now contrast this with the concept of 'taking', if you can.
>

What's dumb about it? I don't know if it's in this thread, but
concentration of wealth by the existing social system is one
of the complaints that some people, or myself at least, have
about the current social structure. The USA, it's been
mentioned here, has the greatest disparity of wealth of all
the advanced nations. Europe is quite competitive with the
USA without having such extreme disparity.

Your hangup is libertarianism. Mine is European
Socialism, which contains capitalism because greed is such
a good motivator, but doesn't allow capitalism to have
complete control precisely because that leads to
enormous wealth disparity. We had enormous wealth
disparity in the USA with the robber barons of the late 19th
century. Not many people feel that was a "good time" for
most of the people, many of whom were living and even
dying in desperate poverty. I know you don't believe there
is such a thing as "the people", but I'm disregarding that
because it seems doctrinaire (and silly) to me, looking at
it from my own decidedly non-libertarian though admittedly
also doctrinaire position.

The annual labour of every nation is the fund which
originally supplies it with all the necessaries and
conveniences of life which it annually consumes,
and which consist always either in the immediate
produce of that labour, or in what is purchased
with that produce from other nations.

-- Adam Smith, first sentence of "The Wealth
of Nations"

Notice that Smith said that labour was the source
of the wealth of nations, not administrators who profit
from the labour of others.

[Werner]

Does that mean Administrator Obama is a useless aristocrat by definition?

[Alias]

On 5/19/2013 7:47 PM, Werner wrote:
> Does that mean Administrator Obama is a useless aristocrat by definition?
>

How do you know? What do you think he would do if he had a congress that
actually wanted to get something done? That is, other than trying to
push bills to the land of nowhere over and over again.

--
Alias

[Werner]

By rumple' s definition anyone not making stuff is an aristocrat. That would include Congress and all government employees, none of whom make anything. They just administer other people's money and stuff. They are all aristocrats according to him.

[Alias]

Sounds reasonable. And the rest of my post? Ya know, the one you can't
see anymore?

--
Alias

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
wrote:

>Does that mean Administrator Obama is a useless aristocrat by definition?

Since the government has long been twisted by "aristocracy"
into looking primarily to the interests of "aristocracy", it has
joined the conspiracy. One could blame the American people
for continuing to put up with that.

[brian]

I think that you are blaming the victims.

Money's influence is relentless and eternal in scope and People are no
longer the resource (power) they were for the short time following the
great war (our experience). Now we are a drain.

How much actual influence does a drain have? I see lots of complaints
about how un fair it is now, but little in real solutions.

My belief is that it will take a huge and fundamental change occurring
to make any real difference. Nothing is to come from any mere
messaging of our present system. A evolutionary dead end...........

[rumpelstiltskin]

I'mOn Sun, 19 May 2013 13:43:58 -0700, brian <bfun...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:59:02 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
><rumpels...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Does that mean Administrator Obama is a useless aristocrat by definition?
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the government has long been twisted by "aristocracy"
>>into looking primarily to the interests of "aristocracy", it has
>>joined the conspiracy. One could blame the American people
>>for continuing to put up with that.
>>
>
>I think that you are blaming the victims.

Arguably so, but they are complacent about being victimized
so maybe they deserve some blame for their own fate.

>
>Money's influence is relentless and eternal in scope and People are no
>longer the resource (power) they were for the short time following the
>great war (our experience). Now we are a drain.

Nevertheless people, not businesses, are the reason
government is worth anything at all. If people don't
vote for a government that looks out for their welfare,
then what they get is at least partly their own fault.

>
>How much actual influence does a drain have? I see lots of complaints
>about how un fair it is now, but little in real solutions.

They have a vote. If they don't want to be treated
like s**t, they should vote for people who won't go
along with treating them like s**t. I still proudly
display a Dennis Kucinich for prez bumper sticker
on my car, dating from the 2004 election.

>
>My belief is that it will take a huge and fundamental change occurring
>to make any real difference. Nothing is to come from any mere
>messaging of our present system. A evolutionary dead end...........

Yep. Another revolution seems the only answer, but
things would have to get a lot worse before people,
including myself, would be willing to take a step like
that. Things might get a lot worse, requiring a new
cleansing, but probably not in what's left of my lifetime.

There's a segment on 60 Minutes right now about a
North Korean kid born in a prison camp, who until he
was 23 just accepted that life meant being hungry and
working all the time. He thought it was the natural
order because it was the only life he had known.

[Werner]

I doubt it takes a huge difference. Mao understood it takes only 5% for a successful revolution. Active resistance is just part of change. Passive resistance is probably as important. The USSR crumbled from the latter. Most people simply lost faith in the ideology and allegiance toward the staus quo. In a sense the USSR simply wasted away much as Earl Evleth is wasting away.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:16:26 AM UTC-7, Werner wrote:
> What a dumb comment.

We will see.

> Isn't that what society and efficient economy is all about?

I'm glad you brought up society. What counts as takers and makers
are societal in nature. It isn't up to the powerful to decide.

> What is your alternative to hiring people to make things?

Who said I had one? I'm pointing out that libertarians consider
the victims of the powerful "takers" even though they are the
hirlings actually doing the making.

>When you want your car fixed or built do you expect it be done for nothing? Did you work for nothing? Do you know many people who do stuff for nothing? If people make stuff for nothing we call them slaves.

As do I. I call most people slaves to the aristocracy, the
libertarian aristocracy that uses their position of power to
take from others through their control of the economy.

> Now contrast this with the concept of 'taking', if you can.

Why should I contract taking from 'taking'?

When I engage in trade I do so with humility. Every trade involves
trading up, that is both parties believe themselves better off after
the trade than before the trade. I recognize that the economy is
structured to force people to work for low wages so the aristocracy
can take the lion's share of the production while claiming they
are just engaging in trade.

If we had a system where trade was taxed differently depending
upon situation so as to equalize the power of the parties then
I'd be less concern about the takers and might consider your
'takers' but we don't have such a society or economic system.

Our government is interested in bringing in more workers under
H1B where they won't be citizens even though we have plenty of
people looking for work. The argument is employers can't find
people to do the work when the truth is they can't find people
to do the work for what they want to pay. They's rather bring
in people who they can push around and send home if they don't
get what they want. It's all about maintaining economic supremacy
and treading on the backs of the real makers.

[brian]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:43:19 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<rumpels...@x.com> wrote:

>I'mOn Sun, 19 May 2013 13:43:58 -0700, brian <bfun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:59:02 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
>><rumpels...@x.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whet...@mac.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does that mean Administrator Obama is a useless aristocrat by definition?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since the government has long been twisted by "aristocracy"
>>>into looking primarily to the interests of "aristocracy", it has
>>>joined the conspiracy. One could blame the American people
>>>for continuing to put up with that.
>>>
>>
>>I think that you are blaming the victims.


> Arguably so, but they are complacent about being victimized
>so maybe they deserve some blame for their own fate.


>>Money's influence is relentless and eternal in scope and People are no
>>longer the resource (power) they were for the short time following the
>>great war (our experience). Now we are a drain.


> Nevertheless people, not businesses, are the reason
>government is worth anything at all. If people don't
>vote for a government that looks out for their welfare,
>then what they get is at least partly their own fault.

Who or what precisely are they to vote for that doesn't come out of
the party machine? The outsider option has pretty much been
eliminated. Those left are vetted by the handlers. Look at Obama.
Choice is an illusion.

Besides, it is that people thing that is the big illusion pushed by
the very folks who are in control. Business is the reason, the only
reason. What precentage of us votes? That vote is shaped by the media.
Who runs that? We are living in a very bad si-fi movie.

>>How much actual influence does a drain have? I see lots of complaints
>>about how un fair it is now, but little in real solutions.

> They have a vote. If they don't want to be treated
>like s**t, they should vote for people who won't go
>along with treating them like s**t. I still proudly
>display a Dennis Kucinich for prez bumper sticker
>on my car, dating from the 2004 election.

Your Kuchinich sticker makes my point. Why that old dream when you
should have the sticker on your car of the NEXT best thing. Who is
that? Besides the president is pretty much irrelevant. Government is
the whole mess and what a total mess it is.

>>My belief is that it will take a huge and fundamental change occurring
>>to make any real difference. Nothing is to come from any mere
>>messaging of our present system. A evolutionary dead end...........


> Yep. Another revolution seems the only answer, but
>things would have to get a lot worse before people,
>including myself, would be willing to take a step like
>that. Things might get a lot worse, requiring a new
>cleansing, but probably not in what's left of my lifetime.
>
> There's a segment on 60 Minutes right now about a
>North Korean kid born in a prison camp, who until he
>was 23 just accepted that life meant being hungry and
>working all the time. He thought it was the natural
>order because it was the only life he had known.

It may not be a revolution but something much worse. There is no place
to go now, so unlike the North Korean guy, we have no place to run to.
Just like the Easter Islanders. Our problems are much larger than
politics. Politics is just a distraction, an illusion. Politics is the
religion of the times and like religion it is not going to save anyone
no matter how much you pray to the god's in DC.

[rumpelstiltskin]

There was Kucinich. Maybe Bernie Sanders will run, though
he probably couldn't get elected prez right now, especially
since as a socialist he's an easy target for Republican slime.
But there will be others. America just isn't interested in change
right now, though. Many people, including myself, are
comfortable and don't want to rock the boat.

>
>Besides, it is that people thing that is the big illusion pushed by
>the very folks who are in control. Business is the reason, the only
>reason. What precentage of us votes? That vote is shaped by the media.
>Who runs that? We are living in a very bad si-fi movie.

Business has replaced people, but people are going to get
tired of that just as they got tired of kings.

>
>
>>>How much actual influence does a drain have? I see lots of complaints
>>>about how un fair it is now, but little in real solutions.
>
>> They have a vote. If they don't want to be treated
>>like s**t, they should vote for people who won't go
>>along with treating them like s**t. I still proudly
>>display a Dennis Kucinich for prez bumper sticker
>>on my car, dating from the 2004 election.
>
>Your Kuchinich sticker makes my point. Why that old dream when you
>should have the sticker on your car of the NEXT best thing. Who is
>that? Besides the president is pretty much irrelevant. Government is
>the whole mess and what a total mess it is.

There isn't anybody. That's why I still have the Kucinich sticker.

We need to accidentally drop a bunker-buster bomb on K-street
instead of on the Taliban, for starters.

>
>
>>>My belief is that it will take a huge and fundamental change occurring
>>>to make any real difference. Nothing is to come from any mere
>>>messaging of our present system. A evolutionary dead end...........


Yep.



>
>
>> Yep. Another revolution seems the only answer, but
>>things would have to get a lot worse before people,
>>including myself, would be willing to take a step like
>>that. Things might get a lot worse, requiring a new
>>cleansing, but probably not in what's left of my lifetime.
>>
>> There's a segment on 60 Minutes right now about a
>>North Korean kid born in a prison camp, who until he
>>was 23 just accepted that life meant being hungry and
>>working all the time. He thought it was the natural
>>order because it was the only life he had known.
>
>It may not be a revolution but something much worse. There is no place
>to go now, so unlike the North Korean guy, we have no place to run to.
>Just like the Easter Islanders. Our problems are much larger than
>politics. Politics is just a distraction, an illusion. Politics is the
>religion of the times and like religion it is not going to save anyone
>no matter how much you pray to the god's in DC.
>

He had no place to run, really, he just got "lucky". He
had no education at all. He heard that the world was
round, and that everyplace was not like the prison camp,
from a prisoner who came in from the outside. They tried
to make a break together. He slipped and fell down, and
the other guy grabbed the electrical fence surrounding
the camp and was instantly killed. The guy climbed over
the dead body to get over the fence (I don't understand
why he wasn't electrocuted too when he did that.) Then
he made his way through North Korea into China, and
then to Shanghai, an amazingly long trek. In Shanghai,
he sneaked into the South Korean consulate and was
smuggled to South Korea.

Here's the segment on 60 minutes. I admit the whole
saga does strike me as a bit suspicious, as if it might
have been trumped up by Karl Rove.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50136263n

[brian]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:42:44 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<rumpels...@x.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:45:49 -0700, brian <bfun...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>>Who or what precisely are they to vote for that doesn't come out of
>>the party machine? The outsider option has pretty much been
>>eliminated. Those left are vetted by the handlers. Look at Obama.
>>Choice is an illusion.


> There was Kucinich. Maybe Bernie Sanders will run, though
>he probably couldn't get elected prez right now, especially
>since as a socialist he's an easy target for Republican slime.
>But there will be others. America just isn't interested in change
>right now, though. Many people, including myself, are
>comfortable and don't want to rock the boat.

America (as you call it, like there is one idea) voted for Obama who
many thought was a good man who would save us. Those saving ideas are
counter to what business wants and never saw the light of day. A
"good" leader is just one person and powerless and is a gift to us to
keep us quiet. We jet to play THEIR game, If we threaten they order
their minions to block to movement or they kill/discredit the leaders.
Nothing withstands the power of commerce ask any Aztec you meet.

Sure American's are interested in change, their own individual ideas
of change. Those divisions are key in never being able to move in any
direction. That is what the owners and you want. And remember that
they are relentless over big time scales. Roosevelt's rebellion has
been overturned, it just took a little time. The owner's of the world
have time.

>>Besides, it is that people thing that is the big illusion pushed by
>>the very folks who are in control. Business is the reason, the only
>>reason. What precentage of us votes? That vote is shaped by the media.
>>Who runs that? We are living in a very bad si-fi movie.
>
>
>
> Business has replaced people, but people are going to get
>tired of that just as they got tired of kings.


>>>>How much actual influence does a drain have? I see lots of complaints
>>>>about how un fair it is now, but little in real solutions.
>>
>>> They have a vote. If they don't want to be treated
>>>like s**t, they should vote for people who won't go
>>>along with treating them like s**t. I still proudly
>>>display a Dennis Kucinich for prez bumper sticker
>>>on my car, dating from the 2004 election.
>>
>>Your Kuchinich sticker makes my point. Why that old dream when you
>>should have the sticker on your car of the NEXT best thing. Who is
>>that? Besides the president is pretty much irrelevant. Government is
>>the whole mess and what a total mess it is.
>
>
> There isn't anybody. That's why I still have the Kucinich sticker.
>
> We need to accidentally drop a bunker-buster bomb on K-street
>instead of on the Taliban, for starters.

Who is this we? You think that the military is on your side? You
Egyptian?

>>>>My belief is that it will take a huge and fundamental change occurring
>>>>to make any real difference. Nothing is to come from any mere
>>>>messaging of our present system. A evolutionary dead end...........


> Yep.

Again.............

It may not be a revolution but something much worse. There is no place
to go now, so unlike the North Korean guy, we have no place to run to.
Just like the Easter Islanders. Our problems are much larger than
politics. Politics is just a distraction, an illusion. Politics is the
religion of the times and like religion it is not going to save anyone
no matter how much you pray to the god's in DC.

> He had no place to run, really, he just got "lucky".

There is no religion or politics that is going to save the common man.
Both are power games devised by the powerful wolves to control sheep.
All the while the world is cooking ............ 400ppm!