A very good question! Is it deliberate?

Driving Us To Violence


By Ray Thomas
From: slick-d@yahoogroups.com

One of the things I've noticed lately is that the government, at all
>levels, seems to be going out of its way to do things that enrage the
>citizens.
>
>Things that if these citizens have a backbone, would cause them to rebel.
>Almost the way King George kept on doing things to enrage the colonists
>until they rebelled.  Only it didn't turn out the way King George planned.
>Is the idea to push us so hard that we'll inevitably fight back so they can
>use the army to "crush us?" It's a known fact that the first people to rebel
>will be those most likely to rebel.
>
>It's an efficient way to get those people to "reveal themselves" so they can
>be "taken out." Let's look at a few of their outrages:
>
>Child Protection: They claim that child abuse is "in crisis."
>
>That "reports" of child abuse have increased at an "alarming rate"
>and that "extreme measures" are necessary to combat it.  Measures that
>violate the Constitution and rape the rights of parents.  They routinely
>snatch children from loving parents, force the parents to "jump through many
>hoops" in an effort to satisfy the child protectors so they can get their
>children back.  But they most likely have lost them forever, especially if
>they don't have the resources to hire lawyers and expert witnesses and fight
>them properly.
>
>There are several things nobody knows, or will not admit.  First, that in
>every case, the child protectors will try to keep the children, even if no
>charges can be proven against the parents, and put them up for adoption,
>thereby permanently severing the ties between parent and child.  They get
>large fees from the feds for every day those children are in their custody
>and $4,500 to $6,000 for each adoption.
>
>Second, that 80% to 90% of those "child abuse reports" just aren't true
>(by their own figures).  But they do get lots of "reports" because they
>advertise for them.  They have literally hundreds of "hot lines" where
>people can call in and make a "report" of child abuse that is totally
>anonymous.
>
>That's right: forget about the constitutional right to "confront your
>accuser." All it takes is an anonymous "report" to cause the child
>protectors to come in and ruin your life and in the end, probably destroy
>it.  The "Good Samaritan Laws" completely protect not only the person doing
>the "reporting," but also everybody connected with the child protectors from
>any kind of "legal" retaliation, even if the report or actions of the social
>workers can be shown to be lies and overstepping of their authority, they
>usually cannot be sued.  They have it all their own way, set up to keep us
>from being able to properly oppose them.
>
>Part of their "advertising involves teaching your children in school that if
>they ever "don't like what their parents are doing, all they have to do is
>put in a child abuse "report" and their parents will be "taken care of."
>
>Talk about destroying parental authority!
>
>The kids don't understand how devastating this can be to their family until
>it's too late.  If they later recant, they are simply not believed.
>
>What really amazes me is the fact that almost nobody pulls a "going postal"
>event on a child protector office.  They're hurting families "where they
>live" in one of the most basic of things: the love between a parent and
>child.  Yet nobody commits violence against them.  Postal workers have
>gotten so angry over working conditions, for Heaven's sake that they've gone
>into their workplace with guns and killed people.  It even happened one time
>in a state government office.
>
>So why does nobody go into a child protector office and kill people?
>
>It could be that while doping up children to make them mind, they're also
>forcing parents to be doped, as well.  There is a rising effort in child
>abuse cases to force parents to be drugged, since their actions in response
>to having their family destroyed sometimes causes people to "diagnose" them
>as "out of control."
>
>Whatever the reason, they can't keep it under control much longer, because
>people are reaching their limit.  And maybe that's the plan, with social
>workers being the "cannon fodder" to force government retaliation.
>
>"Storm Trooper" Raids: It used to be that if the police wanted to arrest
>you, they knocked on your door, showed you the warrant, and took you into
>custody.  No one got hurt (as a rule).  Today, they get out their
>"jack-boots" and burst into your home or business screaming with way too
>many cops, carrying "assault rifles" and "flash-bang grenades," If you try
>to defend yourself, they often just "fill you full of lead." Many times they
>find, after they've killed somebody, that they were at the wrong address
>(again, more and more often)!
>
>That the person they killed was completely innocent and had no reason to
>believe it was cops bursting into his/her home in such a fashion so they
>tried to defend their home and family.  In one case in Denver a cop said:
>"If Mena had not had a gun, he'd still be alive." So today, it's a crime to
>try to defend your home when people you don't know are cops invade your
>home?  Ismael Mena was executed for "contempt of cop." He was otherwise
>innocent, even though they tried to demonize him.
>
>Such raids are happening with increasing frequency all over the country, and
>the "causes" are becoming more and more trivial.  A recent raid involved an
>alleged "pyramid scheme" scam.  In such raids, cops are becoming more and
>more "trigger-happy," killing more and more innocent people.  If that isn't
>a recipe for retaliatory violence from the citizens, I don't know what is.
>
>Land Grabs: In Sandpoint, Idaho recently, cops tricked JoAnn McGuckin into
>going with them to "get some groceries." While they had her off her
>property, they arrested her for imagined child abuse and put her in jail
>while they went after her children.  The idea was to get her and the
>children off their land, which had previously been taken and sold for a
>small tax bill.  The bill was about $8,000 and the property was worth
>$500,000.  They took it and disposed of it in such a way that the county
>kept the $45,000 left over after the taxes were paid instead of having to
>give that money to her.
>
>The only reason we even know about it is that the kids held the cops at bay
>for five days.  That usually just doesn't happen.  When they come for your
>kids, they just take them and the news media usually knows nothing about it
>(and doesn't care).  They put a $100,000 bail on her to keep her out of it.
>
>The evidence of that is that after they finally got her kids off the
>property, they reduced the charges and released her on her own recognizance
>without conditions.
>
>They still have the kids and I'm confident that they'll ultimately be
>adopted out.
>
>Land grabs such as this, like the "storm-trooper raids," are happening more
>and more often.  Sometimes it is a "naked grab" and other times it is simply
>creating conditions that destroy the value of the land.
>
>Klamath Falls, Oregon: In this case, the feds didn't just grab the land.
>They destroyed the value of the land, along with the economy of an entire
>area of the country by shutting off irrigation water to all the 1,400
>farmers in the Klamath Valley.  This destroyed the entire farming industry
>in that area.  Farmers are rebelling and have several times turned the water
>back on.  When the feds came in and guarded the "headgate controls," the
>farmers dug a ditch and routed the water around it.  What the feds will do
>about that, I don't know.
>
>I do know that many farmers were "enticed" into moving there to farm by
>promises of water rights "in perpetuity." Now that they have invested their
>money and their lives there, the government has destroyed them.  The
>"excuse" is to "save" a "garbage fish."
>
>In other words, the government has taken the position that a fish is more
>important than humans and that destroying the livelihood of thousands of
>farmers and the economy of an entire area is more important.
>
>Waco: A lot has been written about this fiasco.  It may have been the
>"opening gun" in the campaign of the power seekers to push us to violence.
>It was all about a small thing and did not warrant the massive
>"storm-trooper" tactics the government used there.  Especially since
>they could have "taken"David Koresh any time while he was visiting
>in town.  But it was done in such a way that guaranteed a violent
>response and caused the deaths of several feds ("cannon fodder")
>and almost 100 Branch Davidians including many of the children
>the government, and Janet Reno claim to want to "protect."
>
>According to the "Oklahoma Bomber," this is the catalyst for his
>actions in blowing up the federal building there.
>
>Ruby Ridge: I can't even think about this outrage without getting mad.
>
>Here, they hid in the woods until Randy Weaver and his family dog discovered
>them.  Then they killed the dog (later driving over his body several times)
>and laid siege to Weaver's home, ultimately wounding his son and killing his
>wife with their infant in her arms by shooting her through a door from
>hiding.  Again, over a small thing that didn't warrant such a response.  The
>way they did it makes it look like they planned it that way.  Lon Horiuchi,
>the man who killed her from hiding, has still to be "brought to justice" and
>may never be.
>
>I could go on and on, citing outrage after outrage, but I won't.  You'd soon
>get bored.  Which is what the power seekers are counting on as they
>continually "increase the ante" by doing things like this more and more
>often until something "Snaps." They want people to "be bored" by such things
>so they won't do anything about it until the number of those  who have
>suffered these abuses "rise up in righteous anger" and commit violence, as
>happened in Oklahoma, so they can make ever more restrictive laws and even
>send in the army to "crush" any opposition without the rest of us getting
>excited.  They're both pushing those who are nearer to violence into
>"jumping off the deep end" and "desensitizing" the rest of us so they won't
>have to fight the entire populace.  After they've gotten rid of those who
>would be the first to get violent over their outrages, it'll be easier to
>control the rest because they'll have the "example" of what happened to the
>people they "crushed."
>
>That's the way dictators work.  Make an "example" of the most violent to use
>in "cowing" the rest, who have become "bored" about constantly hearing of
>one outrage or another somewhere else.  By the time the power seekers get to
>them, it will be too late.  For them.