In the aftermath of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson yesterday, the mainstream media is now desperately trying to blame the attack on “anti-government” sentiment. USA Today ran a tabloid journalism piece that selectively cherry-picked certain phrases used by Jared Lee Loughner in order to create the impression that he was some sort of anti-government nut. Loughner was actually a mentally deranged individual who ranted about everything from “grammar” to imaginary birds (http://www.naturalnews.com/030953_G…). His state of mind, as evidenced from his YouTube posts, seems incapable of holding any traditionally-recognized political philosophy.
The Associated Press, meanwhile, actually blamed the “political climate” for the shooting, saying, “The nation’s caustic political climate has become a suspect of sorts in the rampage that left six dead and a lawmaker critically injured in Arizona.” The implication from these kinds of stories is that if you criticize the government, you therefore promote violence.
That is, of course, a silly idea, especially considering the fact that the government nearly always uses the threat of violence against its own citizens to get what it wants. To use the example of Obamacare, the law itself says that if citizens don’t buy health insurance, the U.S. government will essentially extract a large sum of money from you by force through the use of IRS agents and, if necessary, the government seizure of your assets.
On the health care front, remember it was the U.S. government that committed medical violence against children by forcing teens with cancer to undergo chemotherapy against their will (http://www.naturalnews.com/ 019617.html). Various local governments also routinely threaten vegan parents with having their children taken away by Child Protective Services if they don’t start feeding their children processed factory foods such as hamburgers.
The FDA, for its part, routinely sends extremely threatening letters to natural product companies (cherry growers, walnut growers, green tea importers, etc.) that contain extremely threatening language that imply company executives will be “criminally prosecuted” by the FDA, or have their assets seized, or even have their businesses shut down if they don’t agree to admit to crimes they never even committed (selling “unapproved drugs” which are really just cherries). (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)
No one is surprised when the government uses the threat of violence to get what it wants these days. Today, the government actually commits felony crimes against the American people on a daily basis! It’s called the “enhanced pat-down” by the TSA. If you did the exact same thing to another person at your office, you would be arrested as a “violent criminal” and charged with sexual assault.
The FDA, too, has a long history of armed raids against innocents (http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html) who were merely trying to help others improve their health with the power of nutritional supplements. These raids are always conducted with the use of firearms.
The FDA even sent agents into Ecuador last year to illegally kidnap Greg Caton (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G…) and fly him out of the country, in complete violation of international law. This, too, was conducted with the use of multiple armed agents wielding firearms.
When the government commits acts of violence, it’s okay?
There are many other examples of similar acts of violence by the government committed against the People of America, but it all brings me to this important question: Why are people so outraged when citizens commit acts of violence against a government official while relatively few people seem to care when the government commits acts of violence against the People?
The outrage expressed in the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords is entirely justified, as violence is never the answer to disputes. Yet shouldn’t we all be similarly outraged when the government uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve its own political aims with the People?
The mainstream media is dedicating a tremendous amount of coverage to this story on Giffords, and that is certainly appropriate for its own reasons. But did that same media cover the armed raid of a raw milk food store in California? Of course not.
Or how about the story that the U.S. government is conspiring with the GMO industry to threaten “a list of retaliatory targets” in Europe who resist the introduction of GMOs there? (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G…) You won’t find that story in the New York Times, USA Today, LA Times or any other U.S. newspaper that I’m aware of.
The language used by the U.S. ambassador to France — the “list of retaliatory targets” — is precisely the kind of language that Sarah Palin is now accused of using against her political opponents in America. Sarah is being called out as an instigator of this shooting, yet I’m not aware of a single mainstream news outlet in America that bothered to cover this story of the U.S. government’s GMO conspiracy to push toxic crops into Europe. By the way, I’m not a Sarah Palin supporter, so that’s not where this is coming from. I’m a Ron Paul supporter, but now it seems that even supporting something like a desire to audit the Fed or honor the Constitution is going to be characterized as “radical” speech that will somehow be blamed for these acts of violence carried out by the mentally deranged.
Non-violence must be a two-way street
This is not meant in any way to excuse this act of violence against Giffords and those who attended her meeting. I’m already on the record condemning this act, and in every case that I have pushed for grassroots advocacy on this website, it has been done with the strict urging of non-violent action.
Yet, unlike so many in the mainstream media, I believe non-violence should work both ways. I believe the United States government should stop using violence and the threat of violence against its own People in its efforts to oppress food freedom, to vaccinate children against their parents’ will, and to force people to buy into a health care plan they do not wish to purchase or use.
If you do not yet understand that the government uses violence as a matter of course to get its way, then I challenge you to stop paying your property taxes for a few years and see what happens. Before long, your property will be taken from you (seized) and then sold in order to pay your “liability” to the government. And when they come to remove you from your property, will they bring happy people bearing flowers? Nope. They bring men with guns. The guns, of course, are at their sides to let you know that your compliance is not voluntary. (I pay my property taxes, by the way, and I’m not opposed to financially supporting local government where it makes sense. I use this as a simple example to point out one way in which the threat of violence is used by government.)