Between threats of gun confiscation at the federal level, and repeated incidences of SWAT teams and military-like police forces abusing their power against people in their homes and at protests, there are many reasons to think things have gone too far. The PATRIOT Act, the NDAA, the TSA and Homeland Security all represent the occupation of the American people and the complete destruction of civil liberties. Will something spark a revolution or a civil war, or will the powers that be lose the ability to pit people against each other?

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes said:

“If we defend it together, we can avoid bloodshed here at home. But if we allow our police to militarize and turn into an occupying army, or we allow our military to be used here at home domestically against the people, there will be another fight. And there should be.”

As Rhodes notes, many law enforcement officials have spoken out about the unconstitutional acts of this government, and have indicated that they will stand with the people. This is the best outcome, but not the only one that may happen. Even at the top of the system, there are many who have rebelled and dissented against the unconstitutional and delusional acts of the sitting president. How much more can the system bear before it cracks at the foundation?

How many more abuses will the people take before they fight back? Will those in power back off if people refuse to cooperate any longer? Or will this country roll over and descend into full-blown tyranny like so many others before it?

The article, written by University of Texas at Austin professor Alberto Martinez, highlights Trump’s actual comments before detailing the purposeful spin put on them by dozens and dozens of media outlets in what many believe was a concerted effort to demonize and lie about the presidential hopeful.

As Martinez notes, actually taking a look at Trump’s comments without purposefully [supposing] what you think he meant goes a long way in understanding what he was trying to say.

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”

“You might well dislike Trump’s words. I did. But let’s not make it worse. He did not say that all Mexicans are rapists. Yet that’s what many commentators did,” wrote Martinez. “For example, Politico misquoted Trump by omitting his phrase about ‘good people.’ They said he was ‘demonizing Mexicans as rapists.’ They argued that Mexicans do not really commit more rapes in the US than whites. But that’s not what Trump claimed.”

Martinez goes on to list the headlines that various mainstream media outlets came up with in response to Trump’s comments and they read like an Orwellian attempt at altering reality.

The New York Times: “Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.’”

Time Magazine: “Trump’s comment that Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.’”

Associated Press: “Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals”

CBS News: “Trump defends calling Mexican immigrants ‘rapists.’”

L.A. Times: “describing Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’”

Fortune: “in a speech branding Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.”

Hollywood Reporter: “he referred to Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’”

Huffington Post: “He called Latino immigrants ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists.’”

The Washington Post: “He referred to Mexicans as ‘rapists.’”

Every single one of these news outlets purposefully lied to their readers and have continued to do so after every “controversial” comment made by Trump.

The 70-year copyright on the text, written by Hitler between 1924-1926 and banned by the Allies at the end of World War Two, expires at the end of the year, opening the way for a critical edition with explanatory sections and some 3,500 annotations. In January the 2,000 page, two-volume work will go on sale after about three years of labor by scholars at Munich's Institute for Contemporary History.

Hitler wrote most of the first, highly autobiographical, volume while incarcerated in Landsberg prison after his failed Munich coup attempt in 1923. After his release, he wrote much of the second volume at his mountain retreat near Berchtesgaden. In the book, a mix of personal experience and political ideology, he outlined his strategy. A bestseller after he became chancellor in 1933, it had by 1945 sold 12 million copies and been translated into 18 languages.

The publication is a big step for Germany, which is still struggling with the legacy of the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Germany's teachers' association wants it used in schools. "A professional treatment of excerpts in lessons can help immunize against political extremism," association head Josef Kraus told Handelsblatt.

There are not enough poor people living in middle class neighborhoods to suit the political left. Not enough blacks in white neighborhoods. Not enough Hispanics here, not enough Asians there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to dictate such things. But places that do not mix and match people the way Washington wants them to can lose all sorts of federal money they currently receive under numerous programs.

Handing out vast amounts of the taxpayers’ money is the way the federal government has expanded its power far beyond the powers granted by the Constitution — thereby limiting the freedom of individuals, localities and states. Washington is essentially buying up our freedom with our own money, taken in taxes.

Reminding the public that it’s the corporations who provide the jobs is a formidable argument, one not easily refuted, given the fact that virtually everyone of us needs to work. So why would we continue to molest the very people who provide those jobs? Holster it, Kemo Sabe. Corporations are our friends.

Two things: First, people don’t go into business in order to provide jobs. They go into business in order to make money. The fact that they have to pay employees a salary in order to make that money is viewed by management as a “necessary evil,” which is why they are so fanatically committed to headcount reduction.

And second, today’s corporations are more dedicated to “creating tasks” than “creating jobs.” There’s a subtle, yet profound, difference between the two. A “task” is something that needs to be completed in order for the company to make a profit. By contrast, a “job” is what someone does for a living.

People who boast about not having to join the rat-race — who don’t have the hassle of commuting to their jobs because they are lucky enough to “work out of their house” — need to be reminded that “working out of the house” is a double-edged sword. As cool as it is to be able to stay in your pajamas all day and work out of digs in, say, Santa Monica, California, don’t forget that there’s a highly motivated dude in New Delhi, India, just waiting to steal your job.

My, how times have changed. Today, nearly all of us expect to be showered with presents on Christmas morning, and then almost immediately people begin posting photos of their “Christmas loot” on social media websites such as Facebook. The “Rich Kids of Instagram” have taken boasting about wealth to an extreme that nobody has ever seen before.

Our society has become deeply, deeply materialistic, and whatever “meaning” Christmas once may have had has become almost completely lost at this point. The truth is that this is what our society glorifies, and most of our young adults would act like this if they had enough money to do so.

As it is, the average American will spend 830 dollars on Christmas this year. Most people pile up lots of debt on their credit cards buying lots of useless stuff, and much of it will just end up sitting on a shelf somewhere taking up space. But most Americans do this year after year because society tells them that this is what they need to do in order to be happy.

Of course the truth is that most people do not find happiness during the Christmas season. In fact, the rate of suicide spikes to the highest level of the entire year during “the holidays”, and one survey found that 45 percent of all Americans say that they dread the Christmas season.

Ah, tax money at work. Writes the New York Times: “Suspicious neighbors and landlords pry into their private lives. Blackmailers hunt for victims on the social media sites they use to meet others of the same sex. Police officers routinely stop them to search for incriminating images and chats on their cellphones.

Since an anti-gay law went into effect last year, many gay Nigerians say they have been subjected to new levels of harassment, even violence. They blame the law, the authorities and broad social intolerance for their troubles. But they also blame an unwavering supporter whose commitment to their cause has been unquestioned and conspicuous across Africa: the United States government.”

“The US support is making matters worse,” said Mike, 24, a university student studying biology in Minna, a town in central Nigeria, who asked that his full name not be used for his safety. “There’s more resistance now. It’s triggered people’s defense mechanism.”

The pro-life care centers sued, arguing the Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act was a blatant violation of the constitutional principle that government cannot force individuals to convey government-mandated speech. White determined, nevertheless, that “the public interest would be served by denying the stay pending appeal and allow the development of government policies generated through legislation or regulations developed through presumptively reasoned democratic processes.”

Focusing on its aim of recognizing “human life from the moment of conception and to minister in the name of Jesus Christ to women and men facing unplanned pregnancies,” the care centers said the mandated state notice “is inconsistent with their religious commitments as they believe that ‘abortion is wrong and have never referred, nor would they refer, a client to have an abortion.’”

WND reported similar legislation was thrown out by the courts when it was attempted in New York. It also has failed in several other federal court jurisdictions. Nevertheless, California advanced the idea, and now a number of cases have been brought both by the Pacific Justice Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice. “It is imperative that we stop the government from forcing people of conscience to advocate messages to which they are morally and religiously opposed. If the government can do this, none of our First Amendment freedoms are secure,” said PJI President Brad Dacus.