Extremist Mass Media Uses Oregon Standoff to Criminally Profile Truth and Freedom Lovers
by Bernie Suarez
In one of the most radical and frightening moves by mainstream media this year, writer Leah Sotille of the Washington Post has used the distorted conclusion of the Oregon standoff, specifically the situation surrounding the charges against independent journalist Peter Santilli, who was covering the event, as an opportunity to spawn a vicious attack on not only Santilli, but more importantly truth seekers and freedom lovers all across America.
The shocking article lays down a relatively long list of attacks and conclusions about Santilli while conveniently and simultaneously spraying these attacks on the truth and freedom movement. These attacks and conclusions are carefully derived from pieced together past stories, quotes and comments taken from mostly unclear contexts, all designed to strike fear at the heart of anyone who dares to think on their own, take a stand for Truth, question the corrupt federal government, or even think for a minute that the idea of being free is worth dying for.
While on the surface the story appears to be an attack on just Santilli, writer Sotille leaves no room for genuine truth seeking or innocent love for freedom. With sweeping accusation and a sense of red hot vindication stemming from the patriotic pro-constitutional Bundy Ranch victorious standoff of 2014, Sotille destroys the character of anyone who simply wants to be free, anyone who doubts or disagrees with the federal government, refuses to accept the U.N.’s Agenda 21 hijacking of individual and state sovereignty, or anyone who expects the government to abide by the Constitution. Anyone falling in the cross hairs of the federal government’s resistance to globalization and tyranny is profiled by Sotille as radical and extremist.
If you have any love for humanity or concern for our future I challenge you to read this recent Washington Post article and see if you sense anything wrong. See if you can make any connection to past historical events. See if you can wrap your head around the meaning behind the famous quote from Edmund Burke when he said that:
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it
So let’s break down the points made one by one and we’ll add emphasis to key things that are being said:
In an almost unrelated very first paragraph, the 2015 Bundy ranch standoff that took place in defense of the illegal and criminal BLM cattle slaughtering and stealing is mentioned, and Cliven Bundy, not the BLM, is portrayed as the criminal for:
… trying to remove cattle they said Bundy was illegally grazing on federal lands
No mention that the BLM was told to leave at the time because they were (Constitutionally) in the wrong. Instead the article starts off with a typical cheap shot attack on Cliven Bundy which is essentially unrelated to the main story of Santilli. More so, no one commits a supposed crime then gets surprisingly arrested for it ONE year later. Doesn’t that timing seem more like the timing of a gang looking to get even? If Bundy truly broke any laws why was he not arrested at the time when the standoff occurred?
… a judge kept him in jail after hearing clips of Santilli’s show — proof, the government argued, of Santilli’s participation in the occupation and evidence of his potential danger to the community.
The prosecution played 20 minutes of clips from Santilli’s show for the court, dating as far back as last June, in which Santilli discusses burying illegal guns, dying a free man and shooting federal agents if they came through his door uninvited.
This suggests that anyone who stands for Truth and freedom, even as we speak, is actually on trial right now without that person realizing it. Everything that you are saying and doing right now, even though you haven’t committed any crime, is already being used against you. If Santilli was freely speaking his mind in the past BECA– USE freedom of speech is fundamentally what America stands for, and you are innocent until proven guilty, then why is he being tried retroactively based on past speech? This is a very dangerous road we are now walking and everyone needs to pay attention to this story.
Notice that wanting to die free itself is put on trial here. Don’t we all want to die free? If you don’t die free then doesn’t that mean that you die a slave? Who wants to die as a slave?? All of this normal and healthy quest for freedom is radicalized and demonized as unforgivable evidence of criminality:
(judge) Mosman saw Santilli’s words differently: “When he says he will die a free man, I don’t take that as a man who is joking about it,” he said.
This is a reminder that wanting to “die a free man” is only a “threat” to tyrants and those who want and need you to be their slave. Demonizing anyone for wanting to be free is extremely dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric. Anyone not frightened by one of our own fellow Americans fearlessly writing an article like this is simply not paying attention or is completely brainwashed.
Wanting to be free is not a crime under any historical circumstances and every human being should want to be free and be willing to die for that freedom. Read the very words of our star spangle banner, the Constitution and writings from our founding fathers. Go to a museum or read history and find me a patriot, revolutionary or freedom lover who didn’t want to be free or die for that freedom. Because people were willing to die for freedom is one of the main reasons America exists today. Most importantly, before anyone suggest I’m naive about American history, if nothing else, this very same willingness to die for freedom is at the very core of the message conveyed by the U.S. military recruiters when they enlist recruits. When I served in the U.S. Marines, a major driving force and a key question I had to answer first was- am I willing to die for freedom?
Now this same level of courage and desire to be free is considered radical and criminal somehow, and every American should stop and think before you digest any of the propaganda in this latest mainstream media article referenced here. If you believe and follow mainstream media ask yourself- when did wanting to be free and die free become a bad thing? And when did a willingness to be a slave and die a slave become the norm??
The author then goes on to further undermine freedom and Constitution lovers using Santilli as the proxy target to get at the entire movement. The attack this time is on those who potentially oppose Agenda 21 wildlife refuge as “anti-government” dangerous criminals:
To many, Santilli is seen as a provocateur, mouthpiece and broadcaster for the anti-government “Patriot” movement, often screaming into a bullhorn at any whiff of opposition at the wildlife refuge.
You would think it would all end there, but that would not be the case. The Santilli and Oregon story is then used to radicalize and portray even 9/11 truthers as dangerous “extremists”!:
In an interview at her Portland hotel room, Deborah Jordan Reynolds — Santilli’s girlfriend and co-host on his YouTube channel — told The Post that Santilli’s skepticism of America turned toward extreme around 2002 after he learned of conspiracy theories speculating that the government had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Reynolds said that after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Santilli, a proud Marine Corps veteran, was ready to re-enlist.
But soon “he started looking into the idea that maybe the government did know something else,” she said, and the conspiracy theories threw him. “Pete’s done a lot of changing since 9/11.”
This should serve as a reminder that 9/11 is to be protected by the criminals who did 9/11, and as with the JFK assassination, they are prepared to block the quest for any true investigation of this crime for as long as possible. That they decided to sneak in 9/11 in and of itself should be a wake up call for all.
Reminding us that the controlled mainstream media is never one to let a good opportunity go to waste, the Santilli story is then used to portray even health conscious individuals as radical:
In his early YouTube dispatches, Santilli wears a suit and tie in videos he calls “Consumer Advocate TV,” pointing to bottles of Coca-Cola and telling viewers that high-fructose corn syrup is “destroying America.”
Then a subtle suggestion or link to even the Ron Paul movement:
That’s when Reynolds said the two met in an online Ron Paul meetup group and decided to co-host the show together.
Then the court of irrelevant public opinion is released to further assassinate their target who by now is solidly linked to the entire truth and freedom movement:
Reynolds said that the show caused Santilli’s parents and siblings to distance themselves from him. And it has attracted ire from all sides: Howard Stern, in 2013, questioned Santilli’s statements about Hillary Clinton (which reportedly attracted the attention of the Secret Service). And last summer, while attending Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Baltimore, Geraldo Rivera calls a screaming Santilli a “fascist” and a “Stalinist.”
So if Geraldo or Howard Stern opined in the past about the guy, that’s important in shaping the verdict of public opinion. This is frightening textbook collectivist mentality.
In the following two paragraphs notice how the quote extracted by the mainstream media often comes in the middle of the sentence. That tells us they are selectively editing out a specific part of the sentence while picking the part of the sentence they want you to hear. This amounts to an out of context sound bite.
“What he does is dangerous. He’s speaking out against the United States government, and he’s an activist,” Reynolds said— an activist drawn to the stories of people he feels are oppressed, “whether it’s ranchers, townspeople, black people, yellow people, green people.”
“It’s ambush journalism,” she said. It’s “this new in your face journalism.”
The writer then even suggests Santilli may have orchestrated the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff himself because an “expert” says so:
While Reynolds insists Santilli “broke the story” of the armed 2014 Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada, others argue that Santilli is the reason it occurred in the first place.
“You would not have had Bundy Ranch if not for Santilli,” said J.J MacNab, an expert on militias and anti-government extremist organizations in America.
The article goes on to attack the notion of acting as a journalist or “ambush journalism”, the new media or the notion of acting as a leader. Clearly the goal is to discourage anyone from acting as a leader because if you do, you will be accused of “revving” up people to take action. This is exactly what the control system wants. They almost don’t mind what you actually believe, as long as you keep it to yourself, meaning as long as you don’t act on those beliefs and as long as you don’t attempt to lead others. Both of these actions are demonized in this latest mainstream media article. The control system attempts to demonstrate to the masses that both of these actions can and will be linked to a criminal act. This is because the success of the new world order is dependent on people doing nothing about the enslavement they are in. You are to shut up and take it.
As we have seen, this is nothing more than an attempt to make an example of a truth and freedom seekers in hopes of discouraging others from taking a similar stance. As I wrote about in a recent article, this entire standoff may have been the last stand for America and it happened in broad daylight with ONE man down. It is possible that this is the victory the Agenda 21 plans needed to move forward.
Realize that the entire Oregon standoff is all about Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 and “sustainable” globalization which includes the massive land grab of rural areas and the relocation of people into urban areas. This is why we see cities all across America erecting apartment buildings everywhere as ranchers begin to give or risk their lives for the sake of freedom.
Hopefully freedom lovers will somehow be empowered not intimidated by this story and hopefully our minds will begin to grasp the three-dimensional reality of this fight for freedom. Why should we want to die free? Because the opposite of freedom is enslavement and I don’t know anyone who wants to die a slave.
The control system is trying desperately to flip the script so that you WANT to die a slave and be proud of it. Let’s not give in to this rhetoric and propaganda. The truth of the matter is that articles like the one referenced here are “radical” and “extremist” in and of themselves. Proving that this referenced article is such, is very easy by looking at history. Historically speaking, given what humanity knows today about freedom and tyranny, there are no examples of freedom lovers demonstrating themselves to be dangerous or violent except in a position of strictly defense; whereas there are many examples of tyranny lovers showing themselves to be dangerous and violent extremists.
So let’s ask writer Leah Sotille, what time in history is she referencing to base her claims on? Under what basis is someone who wants to die free a dangerous extremist? And under what basis is tyranny and top-down big government authoritarianism the best peaceful model for living? One recurring theme here is history. History is on the side of those who want freedom.
Realize that state propaganda is very much a part of history; a history that is clearly now repeating itself. Let’s all refer to history for answers on how to fight tyranny. May history, not mainstream media or government propaganda be our guide in these most perilous and dangerous times we live in. May wisdom and knowledge guide us. May Truth be a flame that burns in our hearts. And may freedom be our only goal as we approach our dying days. Everything in life has a value. Do not let someone assign a value to your perception of freedom. There is nothing more important, more natural and more precious.