In July 2015, I reported on and analyzed the FBI's Communities Against Terrorism Program and concluded that it made every adult citizen a terrorism suspect. In January 2016, the FBI announced that it wants to make every high school teacher, administrator and student in America a spy to report to it or local State police suspicious words or activity by any teenager attending our schools. The FBI was not satisfied with its 2012 Communities Against Terrorism Program which asks our neighbors to read any of 25 widely circulated posters and then to report us if we act in certain suspicious ways. Now the FBI has widened its net to over 15 million teenagers in our high schools.

As I explained previously, the dangerous speech which the FBI wanted our neighbors to report included, for example, (1) posting anti-government or environmental slogans, banners, or signs that imply violence; (2) spraying anti-government graffiti; (3) downloading material of an extreme or radical nature with violent themes, or preoccupation with press coverage of terrorist attacks; (4) making unusual anti?U.S. comments; or (5) making extreme racist or religious statements coupled with sentiments which appear to condone violence. As can be seen from this list of overbroad, vague and legally protected activities or speech which the FBI claims are red flags for terrorism, the FBI has little concern for our Bill of Rights, such as the right to speak freely or to read what we want.

And now, with a little sugar coating and Orwellian new speak, there is a dire warning that without this new program a student out there may detonate a "weapon of mass destruction" on all of us. So in January the FBI went after all our high school students when it issued its Preventing Violent Extremism In Schools Guidelines. Specifically, the FBI wants its spies to report any "statements or actions" which "cause concern." "Schools should focus on a student's behaviors and communications," such as supporting "domestic extremist movements," international terrorist organizations or hate crimes.

Within its category of "domestic terrorists," the FBI identifies several violent extremism movements, "including but not limited to animal rights and eco?terrorists, and anti?government or radical separatist groups." There it is again, "anti-government" speech, just like in the widely circulated FBI posters. The FBI puts such domestic groups right up there with ISIS and Al Qa'ida, as those who "decry western policies" or mistrust the government. Indeed, the FBI also identifies as needing watching teenagers with unacceptable "religious or cultural biases" after being raised in families outside the mainstream of society.

Now to keep a classmate from eventually using that ever useful propaganda tool known as a "weapon of mass destruction," what will your average non-lawyer teachers do when "anti-government" words come out of the mouth of a student who opposes an oil pipeline or wants to "save the whales"?  Call the FBI, of course.  Will they err on the side of safety or let youthful exuberance slide?

The core problem here is that "the FBI defines violent extremism as encouraging, condoning, justifying, or supporting the commission of a violent act to achieve political, ideological, religious, social or economic goals." But its premise is wrong that suspicious comments against government or vague or cryptic warnings that suggest or appear to endorse the use of violence in support of a cause are grounds to consider someone a potential terrorist. Remember Patrick Henry's Revolutionary War cry – "Give me liberty or give me death." If ever there was a statement endorsing violence, this is it, but he was a patriot. And I emphasize that the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that government, and this includes the FBI, cannot "forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio  (1969). So reporting students for "encouraging, supporting or justifying" violence as a means to social goals is clearly illegal. In a classic case, this must lead to the investigation of students reading about or discussing revolution, Marxism, Communism or whatever failed doctrine is still out there, even the radical theories behind the American Revolution in 1776 or the French Revolution a few years later.

Writing for the Rutherford Institute, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead has pointed out the conflict here with our own early history: "Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents," he notes. Declared Jefferson, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Observed Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well?armed lamb contesting the vote!" So what if a well-read student suggests in class, as Thomas Paine, Marquis de Lafayette, and John Adams did, that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights.  He or she may be labeled a domestic extremist for such "anti-government" sentiments.

The Dallas shootings have ushered in a very new world for US citizens. For the very first time, drones have been used on US soil to kill Americans without trial or charges. The suspected shooter in yesterday's tragic killings, US Army veteran Micah Xavier Johnson, was, according to police and press reports, holed up in a parking garage and would not give himself up. After hours of what police claimed were fruitless negotiations with Johnson, a weaponized robot was sent to where he was hiding and blown up, taking Johnson with it.

Get past the horror of what Johnson was accused of doing and think about that precedent for a moment. Is it not chilling?

RPI regular contributor Peter Van Buren, a retired State Department official who did a tour in Iraq, put a very fine point on the "robot" bomb:

In this episode Spiro is joined by James Corbett to discuss Geoengineering (ChemTrails). We cover multiple documented aspects of weather modification. This Video Will Challenge even the most skeptic people out there on this topic. We also talk about CIA Director John Brennan's recent speech before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) promoting stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), and a 2016 study on the health effects of stratospheric aerosols.

I dont get all these argument's about religion here.
Bible is a book.
Books dont get written by a god's,they get written by humans.
So why do we think,that there is someone in the skies,who rules the whole universe? because some book actually tells us that?
Makes no sense to me,but well,im an atheist.

What you are is a guy that believes in a conspiracy theory that virtually nobody cares about or thinks about.

You get on the Internet, and find some links that tell you you are part of a tribe.  A tribe which it alone knows and crusades for the Truthy.  And then you set forth on a valiant and courageous journey to tell others The Important Truthy.

Unfortunately, your Truthiness does not make sense, let alone common sense.  So you have to deny common sources which refute you, such as Wikipedia. 

"Oh, they must have been PAID OFF!"

Deal with it.  You just don't have any facts on your side.  Frankly the 911 conspiracy theories are much worse than the "America didn't go to the Moon" nonsense. 

Of course you likely believe that too.

you still use Roman letters...

When a powerful structured empire decide to adopt a faith as its official religion everything changes. No divine acts necessary.

Stoicism is very close to most christan values...

Understand the legal context at the time and you will see how this religion was perceived as necessary at the time of its implementation.

Okay are you a man? I am sure you can get a ticket from the cops today. Park your car wrongly, your bike or drink a beer in public. Do what ever it takes to get a ticket and prove your case. Test if your knowledge is real. Then come back and prove it. The IRS has been challenged by men thousand of time smarter than you and they all lost. So for me you seem like a lunatic if you don't prove what you advance. And please don't tell me that the hardest part is to get a ticket... I am sure you will not have the courage and trust in your theories to do it. And use the excuse that you don't need to prove it. Do it for yourself.

And frankly this email story is a sideshow and an illustration of her lack of respect for the NSA. You can hate them but please she was informed. The real question is who is gonna expose the clintons for what they are: a rapist and institutional looters and heads of a criminal entreprise:  the Clinton foundation. It does horrible things worldwide that damage the USA deeply. And if you need to know one victim of them. It's me. Very sadden to know that the nation that put a man on the moon became a gmo eating ready to vote for Clinton (or trump the friend of Epstein) nation. It's hard to recouncile for my little mind.

There's so much proof out there that 9/11 was an inside job
It's almost irrefutable.

Here, let me help you out.  I've highlighted the part above that you repeat over and over.

This is a bald faced example of "repeat the lie over and over, someone might believe it."

Naive, gullible propagators of propaganda.

For whom the truth is not relevant. 

Anybody who is interested can do the searches, can't they?

Let's start with Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

Oh wait, are they part of your conspiracy too?  Must be.  Are they paid off by the Evil Forces?

Nope, as explain in a previous thread, science cannot prove anything about anything. That's not how it works.
So your claim that science is trying to prove evolution is false. Not sure if you just don't understand science or being deliberately deceptive.

The evidence that the earth has been bombarded with meteors in the past is simply too great to pretend they didn't happen. Mathematicians can quite accurately calculate the heat output from a given size and speed of meteor smashing into earth.
A few of the bigger ones would of literally boiled off the earths oceans.

That unthinkable amount of heat would take hundreds of thousands of years to dissipate.

Bah.

You haven't showed one single piece of evidence that wasn't a laughable bit of a half crazed conspiracy theory.  Not one, dude.

Your ideas don't even pass eighth grade physics and math tests.

But that just makes you believe all the more doesn't it?

The big difference is that bible holes stay holes forever. Science holes get filled in, albeit slowly.

Sometimes science unplugs a "placeholder" bible misplugged hole and puts is own plug in as correct replacement. For example when the young 6000 year old earth plug was replace with the correct 4.5 billion year old earth plug.

Thank God for science. (Not the bible god of course, who gets things wrong.)

Of course, we made the nasty things, but he made the good ones... the usual "peculiar" logic...

Actually, it seems it was the serpent that gave us the ability to develop technology (at least, that is what the "good book" says: the story of the tree of knowledge and the talking snake...) and we were expelled from paradise because of that.

As mentioned earlier, heat dissipation is the biggest thorn in your side anyway so arguing the accuracy of dating methods doesn't help your cause.

I don't know too much about the great flood. Wasn't that myth debunked years ago?

Oh, so your admitting the bible has holes now? I thought the "word of God" was the perfect infallible book? Care to share with us what holes your admitting to? There’s *plenty* of choice.

"For once let's have no fatuous rhetoric about 'healing.' A day cannot live in infamy without the nourishment of rage. Let's have rage. What's needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury—a ruthless indignation that doesn't leak away in a week or two…"  – TIME

As we can see from the above statement, Jeff Kluger has in mind another convulsive episode like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 that will unify the "anger" that Americans feel.

Kluger seems to imply that this anger is stemming from current elections. His concern is that it is spilling over into other areas of life.

If every offensive, unjust or insulting incident turns into a jolt of high-fructose fury mainlined straight to the brain's amygdala, what's left when there's a truly right and righteous reason to rise up in anger? And those important moments do occur.

Kluger seems to be saying that anger has become fashionable and applying anger liberally trivializes it.