Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (04-26-2013) Holland Vandennieuwenhof on The Boston Bombing, False Flag Ops, Martial Law Beta Testing & More
(FEDERALJACK) On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back to the broadcast friend, filmmaker, and radio show host Holland Vandennieuwenhof. They cover the Boston Marathon bombing, the martial law beta test in Boston that followed, the failure of the police state to stop it, the mindset of the powers that shouldn’t be and more. Make sure to tune in.
YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN ON YOUTUBE
LINKS TO THE ARCHIVE PAGES, LISTEN LIVE PAGE, FACEBOOK & TWITTER
(MARK DICE) RIP Jim Tucker, Bilderberg Tracker, and author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary. (December 31, 1934 — April 26, 2013) This one man made it his mission to expose the Bilderberg Group, and tracked their every move for over 25 years, and is largely the reason we know so much about them! We will continue where you left off sir! I had the pleasure of meeting him last year at the 2012 Bilderberg protest in Chantilly, VA.
(Truthstream Media.com) Veteran sleuth of the secretive Bilderberg meetings, Jim Tucker, has passed away at age 78. He is survived by his continuing work.
James P. Tucker, Jr. (12/31/1934 – 4/26/2013) worked for the American Free Press, who broke the news of his death. Prior to that he had worked for The Spotlight.
In 1954, some 100 industrialists, top geo-politicians, European royalty and monopolists began meeting under the radar to more closely mold the world in their image. Founded by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, the group, without a name, took that of their first meeting place: Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands.
The group would remain a powerful embryo growing into world government, with strong insider players controlling the development of and profiting from the emerging system.
Jim Tucker, an experienced reporter working in Washington, D.C., was shocked to learn about the group, as he had never heard them mentioned in the newswires he so closely followed. In 1975, he began tracking Bilderberg, and by about 1980 he was physically shadowing them at their annual meetings, which move to a new, undisclosed location each year.
For many years to come, Tucker remained a lone voice in exposing the momentous efforts to establish a global collective for the benefit of a tiny elite who steer its reigns.
However, later years would bring new change, as the European Union unfolded and meetings like the G20 attempted to bind the regions of the world through financial and political compacts. These events only confirmed the importance and foresight of Tucker’s work.
A new wave of activists learned about the quiet group shaping the world and have now created a fervor around Bilderberg reporting in defense of sovereignty. Whereas before the elitist cell managed to escape the media spotlight, it was now faced with reports and coverage every year.
As time wore on, investigative reporters and alternative media outlets, bolstered by the Internet, joined his ranks.
I interviewed him in 2011 during the Bilderberg meeting in St. Moritz, Switzerland on behalf of Infowars.com, asking him, “What do you think about all the young patriots confronting Bilderberg where ever they go?”
“It’s wonderful,” Tucker responded. “I first started chasing them in 1975, well physically in about 1980. We had reporters working on it before, but I wasn’t satisfied with their work, so I did it myself. I assigned myself to Bilderberg. Yes, it’s gotten better every year. When I first started covering those kids, I’d be the only guy there.”
“I think it was in Helsinki, we had learned about the location quite early that year in November. Our subscribers in Europe – there were very few of them … this was before the age of the Internet [sent] a letter saying, ‘Should we alert the local media?’ Well, I kicked myself in the butt fifteen times. I should have thought of that years ago. The answer was ‘Yes.’
Tucker went on to explain how the elitists were confronted by a throng of reporters that year as a result of the activism of his readers, leading to unwanted media coverage of their efforts, and a subsequent avalanche of interest in their activities.
Since the time of that 1994 Helsinki meeting, interest has piqued about the agenda of Bilderberg. Tucker said that every year since that pivotal meeting, his paper’s circulation department sent a letter to subscribers near upcoming meetings urging them to contact their local media and demand coverage.
“And every year, it gets bigger and better. More young people are becoming aware. Older patriots, too.”
Jim Tucker will be missed, but his memoir, the Bilderberg Diary, published in 2005, puts his work on the record. It includes the locations and dates of the meetings, and significantly, the roster of its notable attendees.
Tucker’s legacy is reflected in the widespread awareness and critique of a group that was once so obscure as to fall completely through the cracks of the news cycle and to be unrecognizable to any in the public that heard its name.
Year after year, he stole from the gods the names of their members (both literally and metaphorically). Their titles, important positions and tremendous influence are now known and listed for study.
What we do with it, whether we hold those individuals accountable and expose their insidious agenda, is up to us, the generations still fighting for freedom.
Last year’s 2012 Bilderberg meeting was held in the United States in Chantilly, Virginia outside Washington, D.C.
It would be Jim Tucker’s last stand against the group he had dedicated his life to uncovering. With him were in total more than a thousand protesters outside the walls of the hotel where black limos entered to make decisions in private that affect the public interest. In that sense, he would go out in a blaze of glory, with his work carried on in thousands of boisterous voices both young and old.
An awakening had clearly begun…
(REASON) It takes backbone to pen an essay that condemns defenders of personal freedom on both the right and the left and explicitly calls for the government to “tread on me” in the name of hoped-for safety — a backbone like aging celery, flopping rubber-like and forgotten at the back of the refrigerator. Over at Time, Michael Grunwald (that’s his mug at the right) has just that floppy backbone, and he makes no bones, not even the softest sort, about his deference to authority in all things. “Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither,” he taunts. He wants his soothing promises of security. There’s no doubt that he speaks for many Americans in these urban-lockdown days, and those of us who care about liberty should probably be prepared to not only battle the security freaks in the political arena, but to make it clear that enacting their Big Brotherish vision into law won’t be the same thing as getting us to live by their rules.
I guess you could call me a statist. I’m not sure we need public financing for our symphonies or our farmers or our mortgages—history will also recall my Stand With Rand on the great laser-pointing controversy of 2011—but we do need Big Government to attack the big collective action problems of the modern world. Our rights are not inviolate. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter. And if the authorities decided it was vital to ask Tsarnaev about his alleged murder of innocents before reminding him of his Fifth Amendment rights to lawyer up, I won’t second-guess their call. The civil liberties purists of the ACLU are just as extreme as the gun purists of the NRA, or the anti-regulatory purists in business groups like the Club for Growth.
As you can see, Grunwald knows what he wants, and he wants it good and hard. He has no time for those who “just want government to leave us alone.” Says he:
But while the Stand With Rand worldview is quite consistent—against gun restrictions, traffic-light cameras, drone strikes, anti-discrimination laws, anti-pollution laws, and other Big Brother intrusions into our private lives—it’s wrong. And most of us know it’s wrong, which is why we celebrate our first responders, our soldiers, our law enforcers. They’re from the government and they’re here to help.
Nothing thrills Grunwald more than first responders throwing their living bodies between his quivering self and “an Elvis impersonator trying to poison the president.” Well … even if that Elvis impersonator turns out to have been wrongly fingered and probably framed by somebody gaming the oh-so protective security state.
Grunwald isn’t ignorant of America’s history and even thinks our “skepticism of authority is a healthy tradition. But we’re pretty free.” He seems to think, in fact, that we’re too free. But his conception of “free” might strike a few of us as just a bit … constrained.
I could argue about how free we really are or the degree to which that freedom is eroding, but that’s not relevant here. Fundamentally, Grunwald really is the guy Benjamin Franklin warned you about. At his core, he’s fearful of the dangers of the world — all of the dangers except those posed by the people he would deputize to keep him safe. Anybody who says he is “inclined to stand with the public servants keeping us safe, even when the al Qaeda operative they ice in Yemen is an American citizen,” lives on the other side of a philosophical divide that can’t be bridged by examples of abuses and atrocities.
By contrast, those of us who value liberty: libertarians, civil libertarians, Tea Party conservatives, or whatever, may squabble among ourselves about the details, but we emphasize liberty as the highest political good. Those of us of a more existential bent even see liberty as necessary for giving value to life — living without it is pointless. Maybe we’re more risk-tolerant than the Grunwalds of the world, or maybe we just recognize that the watchmen appointed to keep us safe pose new risks of their own.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Grunwalds can only get their way if they not only win all the policy battles, but then can also get the rest of us to submit. By contrast, while those of us who value liberty would prefer to win the policy battles to maximize our freedom in a hassle-free way, we can also carve out incremental victories by refusing to go along, defying laws, blinding surveillance cameras and otherwise keeping the world from being the well-scrubbed, submissive security state. When I say that I’m teaching my son to break the law, I’m not joking.
Grunwald may dismiss Franklin’s warning about the tradeoff between liberty and security, but I think a good rejoinder to him comes from the rather more fiery Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
The Michael Grunwalds of the world need to understand not only that we think they’re as wrong as they think we are, but that, with our Bitcoin and our 3D printers and our creative accounting and our backyard gardens and our overall attitude, we’re going to preserve our freedom, no matter what. And that means they’ll never have the controlled world of which they dream.
(REUTERS) The city of Los Angeles will pay $4.2 million to a mother and daughter who were caught in a hail of bullets in February when police mistook their truck for one driven by renegade ex-policeman Christopher Dorner and opened fire, officials said on Tuesday.
The settlement, which allows both sides to avoid a trial, brings the Los Angeles Police Department nearer to closing what had been an embarrassing chapter in its search for Dorner. The department still is reviewing the actions of two officers.
Dorner, a former Los Angeles police officer accused of killing four people in a vendetta against the LAPD, died on February 12 in a fiery standoff with officers in the mountains above Los Angeles.
The shooting-related injuries of the two women, who had been delivering newspapers in the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance, occurred in the first days of the manhunt for Dorner.
Emma Hernandez, 71, was shot twice in the back and her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47, suffered hand injuries from flying debris when two officers opened fire on them before dawn on February 7.
Police had been on the lookout for Dorner’s gray Nissan Titan truck, and officials have said the officers opened fire after mistaking the blue Toyota Tacoma the women were driving for Dorner’s truck.
“In reaching this settlement, we hope Margie and Emma will be able to move on with their lives, the city will be spared millions of dollars in litigation expense and time, and this unfortunate chapter of the Dorner saga will be put to rest,” Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich said in a statement.
Each woman will receive $2.1 million under the settlement, which must still be ratified by the Los Angeles City Council.
In March, Trutanich reached a separate settlement with the women that gave them $40,000 to replace their truck, which was left with multiple bullet holes.
“They are still grappling with a whole range of emotional issues related to the incident,” said the two women’s attorney, Glen Jonas.
Los Angeles police spokesman Chris No said the settlement does not affect the department’s investigation into the shooting by the two officers.
“The department has not yet made any determination regarding the propriety of each officer’s action or any potential discipline related to this use of force,” he said.
The officers remain assigned to desk duty as part of the investigation, he said.
(The Kansas City Star) Missouri’s push to more easily draw blood from people suspected of driving drunk failed to convince U.S. Supreme Court justices Wednesday.
Law enforcement must continue to seek warrants to take blood from drivers stopped for possibly driving impaired, the court ruled in a case that originated in southeast Missouri.
More than 30 other states and the Obama administration had joined Missouri in asking justices to give officers almost complete discretion in drawing blood samples without a warrant.
The ruling thrilled Doug Bonney, chief counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri office in Kansas City.
“It shows that the court understood that drunk-driving laws can be enforced in a way that is consistent with the Constitution,” said Bonney, referring to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
At least the court left in place current procedures for obtaining such blood tests, said Eric Zahnd, Platte County prosecutor who also is head of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
“The good news is that those tests will still be an arrow in the quiver of law enforcement in appropriate circumstances,” Zahnd said. “I am heartened that the court continues to recognize that alcohol dissipates naturally from the blood and therefore time is of the essence in these cases.”
The Supreme Court held that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.
In their 8-1 ruling, justices sided with a Missouri man who had been subjected to a blood test without a warrant and was found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is generally not sufficient reason to dispense with the requirement that police get a judge’s approval before drawing a blood sample.
The case stemmed from the Oct. 3, 2010, arrest of Tyler McNeely in rural Cape Girardeau County.
A state trooper stopped McNeely after he observed his car speeding and swerving. McNeely, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body. He also failed several field sobriety tests.
The arresting officer, Cpl. Mark Winder of the Missouri Highway Patrol, said McNeely’s speech was slurred.
Winder did not attempt to get a warrant but drove McNeely to a hospital, where a technician drew his blood. McNeely’s blood alcohol content was 0.154 percent, well above the 0.08 percent legal limit.
After a circuit court threw out the test results, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld that action, saying that the blood test violated the Constitution. Police need a warrant to take a suspect’s blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court added.
About half the states already prohibit warrant-less blood tests in all or most suspected drunken-driving cases.
Bonney, of the local ACLU office, filed a brief with the Missouri Supreme Court on the McNeely case. McNeely’s lawyer then asked the ACLU to argue Missouri v. McNeely before the Supreme Court. Steve Shapiro, the organization’s national legal director, did so in January, and Bonney attended the arguments.
Zahnd, meanwhile, is continuing on other fronts with efforts to expedite evidence-gathering in possible drunken-driving cases.
The Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, he said, is supporting House Bill 461, pending legislation that would add a subsection to the state’s evidence-tampering statute saying that a suspected drunk driver who refuses to provide a breath or blood sample would be charged with that offense.
(TRUTH FREQUENCY) When Glenn Beck announced last Friday that he was going to “expose the Boston Marathon Cover-up”, even going so far as to call it “manufactured terror”, we must admit we got a little excited. I mean, here’s the same guy who said we were the devil for saying “9/11 was an inside job” NOW saying that the government is evil and creates terror attacks. What gives?
(POLITICKER) In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.
“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.
The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.
“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.
“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”
Still, Mr. Bloomberg argued the attacks shouldn’t be used as an excuse to persecute certain religions or groups.
“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
(ERIC ODOM) What you are about to see is a training video the DHS is using, or has used, to depict scenarios where domestic raids are necessary to thwart terrorist attacks. While it might be logical for a video to depict radical muslims or similar entities plotting bombings or mass killings, the DHS apparently chose to ignore these groups, instead opting to use “illegal gun owners” as the evil guys. The video even references a “local militia group” in the fake news report.
(FEDERALJACK) On this edition of DTRH Popeye welcomes back friend, whistle-blower, researcher, and author Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. They discuss her book “THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA,” Agenda 21, The NAU, Education, Charter Schools, School Choice, The U.N., Communism, and the takeover of society.
YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN ON YOUTUBE
PURCHASE CHARLOTTE’S BOOK HERE
THE DEVIL’S SEVEN-PRONG FORK
AMERICAN DECEPTION WEBSITE