False Flags

It’s Only One Percent: Obama’s “Boil the Frog” Approach to Gun Control

Turn In Your Arms

They say if you want to boil a frog, you can’t just toss him in boiling water. Instead, you put him in lukewarm water, and gradually turn up the heat. That way, the frog never realizes he’s been boiled. The Powers That Be (PTB) have exercised the “frog” axiom throughout history.

• Take income tax. Though now an accepted way of life, income tax wasn’t always around. The original U.S. Constitution excluded it; in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

Therefore the only way the PTB could establish income tax was by legalizing it through a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment was introduced in Congress by Senator Nelson Aldrich, who also introduced the original legislation which ultimately became the Federal Reserve Act. He was David Rockefeller’s maternal grandfather.

Why did Americans accept income tax? Because it was initially only one percent of a person’s income for salaries under $20,000 (the equivalent of around $500,000 in today’s dollars). Senator Aldrich and other supporters of the tax gave assurances it would never go up. So patriotic Americans said: “If Uncle Sam needs one percent of my salary, and I can always keep the rest, it’s OK by me!”

But you know what happened. Congress later dolefully informed Americans it needed to raise taxes a smidge. A few smidges later and, depending on bracket, typical working Americans lose 15, 25, 28 or 33 percent of their income to federal tax. Income tax would never have passed had Americans known it would reach these levels. So the PTB boiled the frog: start low, gradually increase heat.

Boiling Frogs

(Picture credit unknown)

• Another example: Television. The 1950s saw what was called “the Golden Age of Television.” Every program was a family show. By design, there was no sex, gore, or foul language. If there had been, hardly anyone would have purchased a TV back then. So the programs were loaded with traditional values. Someone would say, “Hey, Joe, I just bought a TV and it’s great! My children are learning the importance of honesty, patriotism, and obeying parents!” His friend would respond, “Gee, if that’s what TV’s like, I’m buying one for my kids too!” Then, around 1963, television approached saturation—over 90 percent of American homes had one. Programming then began to change, gradually modified year-by-year, until now you’ve got R-rated stuff: sex, gross violence, bizarre occult horror, foul language, “politically correct” propaganda. The frog—TV audience—was boiled.

• Another example: world government. After the League of Nations failed, the same banksters arranged the United Nations. The Korean War was little more than an effort to validate the UN as the world’s peacekeeper. However, when sovereignty-minded Americans resisted further direct empowerment of the UN, the strategy was changed, as outlined in an article in Foreign Affairs (journal of the Council on Foreign Relations) by Richard N. Gardner. He explained that “instant world government” was unrealistic. Instead, “the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. . . . An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”1

So world government was to be frog-boiled—instituted in pieces, such as international trade agreements like GATT, financial structures like the IMF, environmental measures like the Kyoto Protocol. The “Common Market to EU” and “NAFTA to North American Union” conversions are part of this “piece by piece” strategy. As Zbigniew Brzezinski famously put it: “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. . . . The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization.”

• In fact, “boil the fog” epitomizes the entire CFR strategy. It was enunciated by Elihu Root (using a bricklaying metaphor instead of boiling) at the 1930 ceremony opening the CFR’s new headquarters:

I take a special satisfaction in the opening of this house. The laying of one brick doesn’t create any very great disturbance, but without it, how would you have your house? I think the first thing that impresses me as an immediate lesson from the establishment of this building and the centering of the work of the Council on Foreign Relations here, is that it indicates an appreciation of a truth very widely neglected, and that is that the work of improving the foreign relations of civilized man is necessarily very slow and laborious and difficult, and that anyone who is going to contribute materially to it must settle down to steady, continuous and unspectacular labor.2

How does all this relate to gun control? Obama, and the PTB that tell him what to do, know they cannot destroy the Second Amendment overnight. It must be done incrementally, boiling the frog. So Obama is giving executive orders to ban guns for people on “terrorist watch lists” and the “mentally impaired.” To rephrase that, he doesn’t want all our guns, just one percent. Now where’d we hear that before? Oh, yes, income tax.

Let’s see how the frog would eventually boil in practice. Some Americans may think: “Terrorist watch list. Oh, they’re talking about ISIS. And since I’m not an ISIS member, that won’t affect me.”

Not so fast. “Terrorist” is loosely defined in Orwellian Newspeak. Two months after 9/11, Anna Quindlen published a Newsweek column entitled “The Terrorists Here at Home.” She was referring to the pro-life movement, characterizing it as ultraviolent. Interplaying images of pro-lifers and 9/11 attackers, Quindlen wrote: “There’s no real ideological difference between these people and the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center. One of the leaders of Operation Rescue once sent his followers a letter that concluded ‘Return to the training so that God may use you.’ Sound familiar?”3

Comparing 9/11 to the pro-life movement was quite a stretch. Thousands died in a single day at the World Trade Center. By contrast, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, a total of seven people had been killed working at abortion clinics. Yet Quindlen attempted to broad-brush the entire movement as “terrorists” based on the acts of a handful of extremists.

Americans are quick to accept restrictions on freedom when they think America is under attack by foreigners like Al Qaida and ISIS; they are far more reluctant when the disturbance is domestic. Thus, after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing—blamed on Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols—failed to produce Homeland Security, the terror level was upgraded to 9/11 and blame shifted to foreign terrorists. Homeland Security and the Patriot Act were then easily enacted.

Trampling of civil liberties grew steadily under these measures, but in March 2013, two significant events occurred that revealed Americans were rebelling. One was Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster protesting the domestic use of drone strikes against Americans suspected of terrorism; a Gallup Poll showed Americans overwhelmingly supported Paul. The second event that month was public outcry over reports that the DHS was planning to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (enough to kill every American five times over) as well as over 2,700 armored vehicles. March 2013 was a watershed month during which Americans said: “Enough! What’s going on? This can’t be just about fighting terrorism!” After all, no significant “Islamic” event had occurred on our soil in the 12 years since 9/11.

So the following month—April 2013—came the Boston Marathon bombing, and quickly came the announcement: the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists. Objections to the Patriot Act were back-burnered. What had worked on 9/11 would work again. Patriotic Americans could be counted on to “rally round the flag” if they believed America was again under foreign attack.

The success was so great that it was evidently decided Americans needed a permanent Islamic threat to keep them in fear: ISIS, created by the West, complete with staged “Jihadi John” beheading videos.

The recent ISIS-blamed San Bernardino incident is being used as the most immediate excuse for Obama’s unconstitutional gun measures. For one of many debunkings of this incident, click here, but among the most egregious anomalies were the failure of law enforcement and mainstream media to follow up on eyewitness accounts that three white males in military dress did the shooting, and that Syed Farook, one of the publicly blamed perpetrators (who are dead and cannot speak for themselves) was photographed lying face down, dead, his arms handcuffs behind his back.
San Bernadino shooter

This raises the question: Was he handcuffed before or after being shot? If he was handcuffed first, then shot dead while in custody, law enforcers committed murder. But why would you handcuff a man after he was mortally wounded, lying in a pool of blood?

What might make more sense is that Farook and his wife were patsies who were abducted, handcuffed, then shot to death and dumped in the street. However, the black ops carrying out the mission, in their haste, forgot to remove the cuffs.

Whether things played out that way or not, San Bernardino is the event Obama is most exploiting to ramp up gun control. Let’s examine why his actions are illegal.

When Obama became President, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress may make laws. Article 1, Section 1 says: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The Constitution grants the President no authority to make laws, only authority to enforce the laws Congress passes. Many believe Obama’s tears during his January 5 gun-control remarks were faked, using an emotional appeal to sucker the public into granting him illegal power.

One of Obama’s controversial measures enables health-care providers to report people with“mental health” problems to the FBI. While this might sound benevolent at first glance, “mental disturbance” can be highly subjective. The old Soviet Union used “insanity” as a pretext to incarcerate dissidents. Suppose you told your doctor that you didn’t trust the government, and he reported you as “paranoid” to the FBI? Might your guns be confiscated?

Active Shooter

Another Obama gun measure targets Social Security recipients. The White House says it would restrict those “who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.” But how long would it take to boil the frog, and threaten all Social Security retirees with having benefits withheld unless they forfeited their guns? (“Disarm or starve.”) The government could easily justify this on the pretext that the elderly cannot be trusted with firearms. (In reality the elderly often need them most—a gun can be the only “equalizer” a 75-year-old has against a 25-year-old intruder.)

If Obama is allowed to get away with his unconstitutional measures, I expect we would next see another “San Bernardino.” But this time ISIS would not be blamed—Obama having gotten his foot in the door with “watch lists,” the fall guy would become a domestic group, whomever the government wanted classified as its “terrorist du jour.” A militia group? Oath Keepers? Pro-lifers? A 9/11 Truth group? Let’s say, just for example, it was blamed on the truther organizaton We Are Change. All We Are Change members might then go on a “watch list” and be forbidden to own firearms. OK, who’s next? Boil that frog.

One other booby trap lies in allowing Obama’s “executive orders” to override the Second Amendment. Once he tramples on that one, he establishes a precedent for overriding any provision in the Bill of Rights. What would the hit list target next? The right to a jury trial? To peaceably assemble? How about freedom of speech?

“Since this most recent shooting tragedy was provoked by irresponsible hate speech on the Internet, and Congress has failed to take any action, I am hereby creating a new set of measures which will eliminate certain types of content on the Internet. But don’t worry—I’m not revoking ALL speech, just that ONE PERCENT . . .”


(Picture credit: David Dees)

They say “always leave them laughing.” I hope these gun-themed memes and short videos will help do that:

Wolf Free Zone

Honduras Switzerland

Gun Control for Dummies


  1. Richard N. Gardner, “The Hard Road to World Order,” Foreign Affairs (April 1974), 558.
  2. Elihu Root, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs (January 1931), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1931-01-01/public-opinion-and-foreign-policy.
  3. Anna Quindlen, “The Terrorists Here at Home,” Newsweek (December 17, 2001).