W.R.P.D and “BLACK THUGS” LOVE MY NEO-NAZI ASS

Life is not without a sense of irony as I always say, and this little ditty shall be a prime example of that maxim. Though I should warn you before reading on that if you are easily offended or are not too keen on hearing bone crunching truth about certain things you should curl back up in your bed of self-denial and read no further.

 

Freddie Gray-Human Being

Freddie Gray-Human Being

Recently I wrote an article which briefly touched on the Baltimore issue as a result of the Freddie Gray murder. If you read the article They’re All Gonna Shoot at You, you are aware that Freddie Gray was only mentioned in the opening, as the rest of the article addressed the Revolution going on in this country as a whole. Nevertheless it took about fifteen minutes for someone from social media to add their two cents on the article with an idiotic response regarding “black thugs” in this country destroying the flag and yadda, yadda, yadda. Typically I refrain from social media phallic measuring contests, but on this particular occasion I felt it was my duty to engage someone with the I.Q. of an eggplant as a public service by making an example of his douchebaggery. Below is the little back and forth he and I had, and as a favor to him I will be changing his actual last name to “Douchebag” …and because that would be funny.

 

Paul Douchebag: Im am more worried about being shot by a “black thug” than i am being shot by a cop period. Blacks categorize any issue they have with white people when they actually bring most of it on themselves with that being said i am tired of tip toeing around blacks because we are afraid to hurt their feelings

3 hrs · Like · 1

Daniel Louis Crumpton: When about less than ten percent of this article had anything to do with “black thugs” yet it is the only issue of a much larger issue being addressed that you chose to point out; I would have to say you are far from tip toeing around blacks but rather seem to be preoccupied with stomping as loud as you can around them. Cheerio!

3 hrs · Like

Paul Douchebag: You are right i am tired of it so now voicing it as loud as i can all the rioting and violence that they do everyone says oh we feel bad for them they have been oppressed i am 45 years old and for as long as i remember they have had the same rights if not more because of there color so yes im tired of their whining and crying

3 hrs · Like

Paul Douchebag: I see everyday of blacks killing whites and there is no mention of it no hate crime involved by the doj or any type of media or gov’t but yet it continues everyday. They kill whites because of color but to this day it has not been proven a single cop shooting was because of color but yet because of there background and we still have people bleeding heart liberals who take up for them because they are the poor old oppressed blacks

3 hrs · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: Well congratulations fella, you have successfully taken the bait on the hook of divide and conquer tossed out on the line by the federal government. Those black people you are so frustrated with happen to be American citizens just like you. You may want to view them in a different light because of the color of their skin but I choose to just see them as people and ascertain each incident of police brutality on an individual basis. The fact of the Baltimore thing is that the police killed a guy without due process and as a result American citizens protested. Perhaps a small minority of those Americans went about it in a poor way, but you can’t say they didn’t do something in the face of tyranny. That is a little more than I can say about groups claiming to protect the Constitution and the Rights of ALL MEN WHO ARE CREATED EQUAL who do absolutely nothing while the federal government pushes against us all. If you have a problem with black people who behave poorly I would suggest you order some bulk pocket Constitutions and go to the hood, pass them out, inform them of their Rights and harness the passion they have on the side of the Liberty movement.

58 mins · Like

Paul Douchebag: If you call rioting and looting and killing the path to liberty then you can keep your liberty

37 mins · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: I don’t recall saying that at all.

36 mins · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: But you are welcome to cite where I did.

36 mins · Like

Paul Douchebag: I am a war vet who has fought for this country and to see these thugs destroy the flag and do what they do sickens me and i dont have a problem with all blacks but i sure as hell do when they are thugs

36 mins · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: The Baltimore thing is about a flag being destroyed?

34 mins · Like

Paul Douchebag: This is not just about baltimore

31 mins · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: And I am sorry, I really am, but if you are 45 you have not fought for this country at all, you have fought to expand a corporation across the globe because this country hasn’t declared war since WW2…just sayin.

31 mins · Like

Paul Douchebag: Let me tell you something you neo nazi i have seen men and women die in combat for this country in iraq for whatever fucked reason we were there that was still my brothers and sisters that died there asshole

29 mins · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: I’m sorry you had to see that, I honestly am, but I am actually a Patriotic Constitutionalist that read there should be no standing army in this country two years after any declared war in the Constitution so I wasn’t fooled into fighting proxy wars for the military industrial complex that has brought this Republic to its knees. Seeing people die doesn’t justify a position and slinging unwarranted labels on people because you don’t like what they have to say doesn’t either. But just out of curiosity, were any of those brothers or sisters black?

23 mins · Like

Paul Douchebag: Yes they were and i dont have a problem with blacks who conduct themselves accordingly but its the ones that act as thugs that would kill you right now in a dark alley just because you are white

18 mins · Like

Paul Douchebag: They can protest all they want that doesnt bother me and it is their right to do so but we are not talking about protest ee are talking about rioting

16 mins · Like

Daniel Louis Crumpton: I live in the south, I’m more likely to be lynched by bedsheets in the woods than I am to be killed because I am white. Go back to your first comment man, we aren’t talking about rioting; we are talking about you not wanting to tip toe around a particular group of Americans, which is your right to do so as well. I just think it would be more productive for the country if we stop dividing ourselves and confront the real enemy of Liberty. And as far as flags go, they are just clothe representations of an ideal and the ideal of ours has been marred more by the cats in Washington that sent you to war more than any so called “black thug”. You want to toss titles around, toss them at your recruiter.

10 mins · Like

 

So there you have that little nugget of goodness, but of course the tale doesn’t end there and let us hope that Paul Douchebag is reading along with us so he too can learn how this thing should be done. For his sake, our sake and the sake of all those pesky little “black thugs”.

As I typically do on a daily basis I pop my ear buds in and go for a walk of meditation on the Wellston Trail in my town which ends at a public park for all to enjoy. It’s a beautiful trail which goes through a neighborhood and a nature walk for your viewing pleasure where I can pass by fellow citizens of my town with a smile, a nod and an occasional chat. After emerging from the forest I was pleased to see a lady friend of mine sitting on the grass watching her two little girls networking on the playground for some fellow kiddies to play with. I joined her and after a while of enjoying the evening breeze underneath the sun it was time to round the girls up. When pleas of five more minutes were offered up she and I had no choice but to be at their mercy, so we chose a nice pic-nick table to sit down for a while.

With a content smile I listened to some tunes and watched the kids playing, the birds searching for food, lovers holding hands and …uh oh…a bunch of “black thugs” playing basketball not too far away. A few moments later a silver Warner Robins police department squad car came rolling into the park to which I mumbled “Here come the po-po.” My lady friend sighed wondering if they were coming for me again but I knew better. We waited for the po-po officer to po-po pop out of his cruiser but alas; he did not until a second cruiser arrived and then it became obvious as to why. Po-po officer number one was a white guy. Po-po officer number two was black, or brown, or mocha or whatever. As the two officers crossed the bridge and headed towards the basketball court the “black thugs” began to understandably disperse and rightfully so because I’m pretty sure they were well aware that po-po’s can’t play ball for shit.

They stopped two of the “black thugs” leaving the court that both had back packs on and from where I was could tell they were probably wanting to search their effects. After a moment or two they let the first two go and headed towards the rest of the “black thugs” on the court who still scrambled to collect their gear. Clearly shaken from the intimidation tactics of the po-po-stopo they had to wet their whistle at the nearby water fountain. At this point I asked my lady friend to watch my things and told her I would be right back. With my messenger bag on my shoulder I walked towards them and started to pull out my water bottle so I could refill it at the (oh no Paul Douchebag!) the same water fountain as the “black thugs”.

“Hey guys, what was that all about?” I asked.

The two “black thugs” were young guys around 18 or 19 and obviously shaken by the intimidation tactics the white po-po had used on them.

“Man, they said they lookin’ for weed like we got weed on us or somethin’.” The one to my left answered.

“Did they try to search you?” I asked.

“Naw, but they over there tryin’ to search some of them.” Said the second young man.

I looked over to the court where the officers were already digging through a back-pack on a bench as all the other “black thugs” walked away.

“That’s messed up man. Hey listen fellas, don’t ever let a cop search you without a warrant and if they ever approach you again like that don’t say a word to them, all right.” I instructed.

The two young men looked at me a little perplexed. They had never heard this before, probably because the public education system doesn’t want young black men to know what their rights are.

“You mean I aint gotta let them search me if I don’t want to?”

“Of course not. If they don’t have a warrant with your name on it, what they want to search and what it is they are searching for signed by a judge, you don’t have to let them search a damn thing.” I said.

I pulled a pocket Constitution and flipped to the Fourth Amendment.

“Look at this fellas.” I said as both of them flanked me to read along.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I read out loud.

The two young men looked at each other wide-eyed with a shared “Daaaaaaaaaaamn” which brought a well-earned smile to my face as I could hear light bulbs buzzing on.

“Now listen guys, cops can legally lie to you so don’t fall for their tricks that what I just showed you isn’t true, all right. Don’t let them try to get in your face and intimidate you because they’re just trying to throw you off your game, you got that?” I asked.

As both of them nodded I glanced over and saw that po-po one and po-po two had finished their search of the bag and now had their eyes on us, walking our way by the second. Knowing our time was short I knelt down to find something to write on from my bag and sat the Constitution in front of me.

“Listen guys, I’m going to give you my contact information so you can get a hold of me when we part ways. I’d like to teach you guys your Rights so you know how to deal with the cops when they approach you. They like to target young black men like you because they know you are unaware of your Rights by design so they can throw you in the system and keep you there most of your life so they can milk you for money. Sound like a plan?” I asked.

As the officers nearly approached us I looked up and saw both of them nodding with the confidence only a young black man can give the proper swagger to. As I started writing down some of my info it didn’t take too long before po-po pasty face’s voice chimed in with: “What’s in the bag?”

The two young black men froze on either side of me thinking they had jumped out of the frying pan only to find themselves in the fire. Still looking down I smiled as I thought; “Now here is a perfect teachable moment isn’t it? Thank you Universe.” Once I looked up the first thing I focused on was his name badge; J. Kemblech. The second thing I focused on was the face of the black officer who stood a few feet behind with the look on his face of ‘I’m just here because this white asshole needs a token black officer in case anything goes down and quite frankly I’m tired of this crap’ .

“What was that?” I asked.

Officer Kemblech repeated “What’s in the bag?”

“Do you have a warrant?” I asked.

“Do what?”

“I said, do you have a warrant?” I repeated.

Uh oh, I have questioned his authority and now his face contorts because I have not obeyed so I have to watch the obligatory Superman pose as his fists touch his hips.

“What’s going on here with you guys anyway?” Kemblech asks authoritatively.

“Oh, I’m just teaching these two young black men about their Constitutional Rights and how they don’t have to allow you guys to search them without a warrant.” I answered as I pointed to the Constitution in front of me.

To my pleasure the black officer behind pasty face smiled from ear to ear as the two young black men looked at me as if to say “Nigga, is you cray?”

“Oh is that right? You just come down here to teach people their rights like that’s normal or something?” Kemblech asked with arsenic in his tone.

“Well I’m down here playing with my kiddos over there if you must know but whenever I can teach someone about their Constitutional Rights I do as a matter of fact, you know the Constitution don’t you, that thing you took an oath to uphold?” I asked.

“I’m out here protecting your constitutional rights, untkay, so I think I might know it a little better than you. So let’s see some I.D.” Kemblech ordered.

“I don’t carry any.” I smirked.

He gives the look of astonishment because I don’t have any paypaz, cranes his neck and pulls out his pad and pen.

“What’s your name then?”

“I don’t have to tell you that either…sorry guy.”

His jaw opens in bewilderment as the black officer behind him drops his head in an attempt to hold back a laugh. Then like a spoiled little child who just had his lollipop taken away he exclaims “Yes you do! Georgia law says you have to provide me with your name and birthday if I ask you!”

“Would you like to read that to me in the O.C.G.A then tell me what probable cause you have that I am in the commission of a crime?” I asked.

“You’re loitering!”

“I’m in a public park and curfew isn’t until 9 p.m. so would you like to explain to me how I’m loitering?” I asked with my best return of the look of dumb-assery.

Officer Kemblech stutters and stammers for a moment, upset that his shiny badge and bat-gadgets aren’t helping him to get his little way and I make the decision to end this little back and forth.

“Look man, I’m going to go ahead and evoke my Fifth Amendment because I’m tired of answering your questions, okie dokie?” I smiled.

“So you aren’t going to give me your name?” He asked.

Silent smile.

“I said you aren’t going to give me your name?” He repeated.

Nothing but crickets. The two young black men looked at me with their  jaw to their pecs, then to me as if to say “Muhfucka, you is cray!”

“Oh, I see. You want to play the game.” Kemblech said as every officer I have ever encountered does.

That’s when I decided to activate my First Amendment with a response of “My Constitutional Rights are not a game and neither are theirs.” as I pointed to the young men beside me.

“Now” I said “am I under arrest, or am I free to go?”

With a humiliated swallow of pride he whimpered “You’re free to go.” So I stood to my feet and looked at the two young men with a wink knowing that it’s one thing to teach them their Rights but it is something completely different to show them their Rights in action.

“You fellas want to follow me and get this information I’m preaching?” I asked.

“Hell to the yeah.” They both reply as they give officer Kemblech their best chin snub.

“Let’s step.” I say as we turn our backs to them and walk to my lady friend and her kiddos with our best gangsta walk.

“By the way, whoever’s bag that is over there, you can go back and get it now. We found a little weed in there but I’m not worried about a little residue. If it’s yours you might want to grab it, there’s a nice pair of shoes in there. Wouldn’t want you to leave them behind.” Kemblech couldn’t help but baiting. We just kept walking.

My lady friend was sitting at the pic-nick table shaking her head with a smile as the three of us rolled up on a sista. I finished giving them my contact information and threw the Constitution down on the table for them to keep.

“You see how it’s done now fellas?” I asked.

My chest filled up with pride as I saw the look of empowerment on their face at having learned a most valuable lesson this day, a lesson they would never forget for the rest of their lives. They had seen first-hand how every American, black, white and everything in between should exert the God given Rights they are endowed with in the face of authoritarian oppression from a police state masquerading as protectors. I felt privileged having been the messenger of this most Holy message to two young men who have their whole lives ahead of them. I instructed them to contact me as soon as they got home and I would teach them how to use those Rights backwards and forwards under the condition that in turn they teach as many young black men the knowledge I would pass along to them; to which they agreed.

As they walked on their way my lady friend took her youngest one’s hand as her oldest hopped on my back and we made our way to her car. As she strapped the kids in their seats I watched as the police cruisers dispersed the area. Before she got in the car I gave her a peck on the cheek and told her I was going to walk back home and I would see her later to which she nodded and told me to be careful. So I put my earbuds back in and as the sun quickly faded and gave way to the dark I gangsta walked my way down the trail. Just before entering the woods leading to my house I looked over at the bench where the back-pack still sat. I looked around for a minute and with Geto Boys playing in my ear I walked over and snatched the bag up… like a boss.

So if you happen to be reading this Paul Douchebag, I would have you take note and realize that if you see young black men as “black thugs” it’s because you haven’t done your duty as an American patriot and shared with them the Rights you claim to have fought for. You are right in not wanting to tip toe around blacks because in all actuality you should be marching alongside of them. As for the Warner Robins police department, how about instead of looking for victimless crimes and racking up on quota arrests and citations you start looking for citizens performing good deeds and public services and uplift them. How about every cruiser is equipped with pocket Constitutions to be passed out rather than being equipped with military grade weapons? How about instead of We the people being expected to bow to your badge, your badge be so loaded with integrity and honor its heavy enough to make you bow to us; the people you made an oath to protect and serve?

HYPE-GNOSIS CD

CLICK ME!!

As for the owner of the bag, please contact me on Facebook on a private message and I will be happy to return it to you. It still contains your kicks, house key, Chap Stick, gold chain, .87 cents and some receipts from fast food joints. I didn’t find any weed though.

 

 

 

 

 

DAMN IT FEELS GOOD TO BE A GANGSTA

THEY’RE ALL GONNA SHOOT AT YOU!!!

matrix-agentgunDaniel Louis Crumpton here wishing to deliver a bit of my First Amendment to all of you. Recently I was listening to JADED with Kim Ochelli on UCY.TV, a radio show I am a frequent guest of myself though not on this particular night. A listener by the name of …”Cracker” called in to express his concerns regarding the recent events in Baltimore in the aftermath of the alleged murder of Freddie Gray while in police custody. “Cracker” began his call by pointing out the rap sheets of police homicide victims and how “these people” were “black thugs”. After host, Kim Ochelli expressed her view that a person’s rap sheet doesn’t warrant an instant death sentence the caller made the Indiana Jones logical leap of faith by switching gears to the idea that all of this was a distraction from the real issue of a police state. “Cracker” points out with no attachment to the details of the Baltimore issue, his contempt for the fact when people complain at police departments they are ignored.

Now, before I get into the meat of this piece I do have to address the opening premise of the caller’s concerns. I don’t do the whole racism thing because quite honestly I think it is just a waste of time due to the fact that I personally don’t believe in “races”, rather I believe in cultures. That being said I don’t really see the need to distinguish a “black thug” over a thug at all, but “Cracker” is more than entitled to make those distinctions for himself. Secondly, I don’t see how the caller could possibly believe that people murdered while in police custody without due process of law could be a distraction from the issue of a growing police state in this country and dismiss those murders due to rap sheets generated by the police. Anyone who is aware of the police state rising knows full well that one of their many tactics is to upcharge those they arrest with anything and everything they can think of. I have personally spoken to many police officers who gloat about up charging all the time with the justification that they know the suspect’s lawyer will plea down anyway, so that might as well throw as much mud against the wall as they can to see what sticks. However, Mr. “Cracker” has no problem whatsoever dismissing the issue of Freddie Gray based on how many statutes and act violations the police could pin on the guy which may or may not be true. As I said before, the Freddie Gray thing will not be the meat of this article but I had to premise the logical nose dive this particular caller began with to prepare you for what is to come.

SURPRISE! YOURE DOOMED!

SURPRISE! YOURE DOOMED!

For the next hour and some change Mr. “Cracker” gives Alex Jones a run for his money as he nearly swallows his phone and with a loud guttural, desperately pessimistic voice essentially declares that all is lost. After establishing that he will completely talk over any opposing views expressed by the host and co-host (because after all, if you can talk the loudest that means you must be right), he uses the ham fisted “rabbit trail” technique when asked direct questions. You know how that works; you ask a direct question and the person who has absolutely no answer replies with a twenty minute story that has no connection to the question so that by the time they are done you will have completely forgotten what you asked to begin with. Mr. “Cracker” then goes on after popping his intellectual ego Viagra to scream to the audience that A. there is a police state coming and B. nothing can be done about it, hence completely demoralizing anyone who happens to think otherwise thereby immobilizing them by means of fear from attempting to do anything about it. Now aint that a great prize at the bottom of the box of Cracker Jacks?

The overzealous caller goes on to outline things that I think we can all agree with such as a fiat currency, globalization, the police state and the collapse of everything as we know it. These are concepts that we are all aware of and concerned about, myself included, however where “Cracker” veers off the course I have set myself upon is at the point when he does a Joker like hair pull and rips through all the avenues of pushing this thing back. Take tyrants to court? Nope, not gonna work. Protest? No chance. Educate the masses? Good luck there. Vote for Liberty candidates? Why vote? Expose the corruption? I’d rather stock up on ammo. Will it work on the federal level? Course not. How about the local level? Unicorns and skittles fella. This guy is a hard liner and makes absolutely sure that by the time he is done ingesting his phone with his predictions of all out nuclear annihilation of the human species the listener is left with the impression that there is no point engaging in anything because he has attempted to shoot down any and all solutions many of us advocate.

saltines“Cracker” points to the mythical date of when the “shit hits the fan” as they say when it will be kill or be killed. Aside from the fact that no one has ever been able to define for me exactly what the “shit hitting the fan” is they typically say it will be when the dollar collapses. I find this an odd indicator of total enslavement by a tyrannical, shadowy elite seeing as how the same people of this sort of mindset will clearly tell you that the establishment of the current dollar was the beginning of total enslavement by a tyrannical, shadowy elite. So let me get this straight; the shadowy elite designed the fiat system of the dollar by establishing the federal reserve in 1913 putting us all in shackles of never ending debt …but if this shackle of the dollar collapses that is when the proverbial “shit will hit the fan”? Is “Cracker” suggesting that the only thing postponing enslavement is enslavement? Your guess is as good as mine and quite frankly this particular caller lost me when he stated that Muslims get a free pass in this country because they are willing to kill people. The first thing I would like to know is what Muslims are getting a free pass at; full price at the local barbeque joint buffet? Secondly, aren’t all those drones flying over Muslim countries and smart bombs blowing Muslim kids to bits sent courtesy of the world’s finest “Christian” nation?

 

The one thing this caller was absolutely sure of is that this thing will NEVER be settled peacefully and I am sure he would be more than happy for you to subscribe to that viewpoint as well. That’s right, he is gonna go down in a Clint Eastwood blaze of glory complete with squinty eye and half chewed cigar as he holds his shotgun up at a legion of Lenco Bearcats as the words “Go ahead punk, make my….oh my god! Oh my god! I’ve been tazed, bitten in the face by a rather large dog, riddled with rubber bullets, real bullets and these nightsticks really hurt while they are thwacking against my dying skull. Maybe I should have thought this whole shooting at the tyrants that wanted me to shoot at them to begin with so they could do this to me thing through before I came out of my woodshed with this cute little shotgun.” See how silly that sounds? The fact of the matter is that people who say they will shoot back will not shoot back no matter how much they say they will because if such people actually would, they would have done it a long, long time ago. My Dad always told me to never take a man who talks about bringing a world of ass whooping on you seriously because he is overcompensating with his mouth what he isn’t willing to do with his ass. That goes for bullies and gun barrel licking doomsday prophets waiting for feces to fly from a fan.

GET OFF MY LAWN!!

The caller indicated he was an older gent that was in Vietnam and knew from the age of 16 that this country was turning into a police state…but still made the decision of participating in an unconstitutional institution (military) and furthering the agenda of a police state by being a pawn in a “police action” overseas. Thanks guy! We young whipper snappers really appreciate you passing the buck on down to us so that we are forced to find solutions you were too apathetic to deal with in your day and too pessimistic to even consider as options today. Your country’s prodigy is in debt to you Mr. “Cracker”.

The fact of the matter is that the caller is wrong about this Revolution. Yes it is true that American citizens are armed to the teeth just as it is true that the police and military are as well and what a conflict would spell is simply mutually assured destruction. At the end of the day the best interest of both so called sides will be is self-preservation; and that excludes mutually assured destruction. When you rule that out the only option you are left with is Peaceful Revolution. What needs to be understood is that Revolutions transpire differently with the passing of time, though the purpose of Revolution is to essentially reboot something which has degraded. Revolutions are upgrades and anyone who believes we are ever going to go back to the good ole Republic that started in 1776 is sadly mistaken. No, as I always say and as your eyes see each and every time you visit our site, Revolution is Evolution. We aren’t going to restore the Republic, this is true. What we are going to do is walk through these birth pangs fearlessly and on the other side give birth to something far, far better. People such as “Cracker” will still be cracking rocks together waiting for a spark from the Neanderthal age as people such as myself and you hold up high the flaming torch of Liberty from the rising of a new species.

As for the claim that words are useless in Revolution I would ask people of such persuasion to remember the fact that the sword of Washington would have had no power if not for the pen of Paine and what more are the rights in our Constitution than mere words? No, words are the most effective weapon in any battle because they have more power than any bullet in that they can blow minds away rather than brains. As Thom Yorke says; what’s the point of instruments, words are a sawed off shotgun! So if you are determined to fight in this thing you best reload; as for me my pen is my sword and my keyboard is my AR-15.

 

JADED –CRACKER CALLS AT 43:00

JASON THE FIRST: “I’M JUST DOING MY JOB”

Police incite violence everywhere every day. Is this fact lost on you?

Perhaps it is time to change police actions so things don’t reach such a fevered pitch? Blaming the symptoms of a problem I.E. civil unrest rather than the glaring problem of a disrespectful militarized police force leading things up to this point is naive and irresponsible, in my humble opinion. When/if things do return to normal? What changes? When the answer is “not much”?

The problem remains as do the symptoms. There is no justice.

No justice = no peace.

Are you really that surprised? Police can do anything they want to whoever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want and get away with it. Lying and embellishing facts on police reports is common and encouraged. Are you surprised there is a riot and looting? Attitude reflects leadership. Every form of government is operating in near total anarchy and is out of control. The Constitution is dead and completely ignored.

photo from humansarefree.com

photo from humansarefree.com

That law (the constitution) is/has being ignored by every single person that has taken an oath to it. Some of those same people steal loot and incite and commit violence against American people all day everyday under “color of law” that is really not law at all and we all know it. Attitude reflects leadership. Leadership operates in near complete anarchy from the top down and the bottom up. When this shooting is eventually deemed “justified” (as it may well be) and the riots and looting stops?

The real under lying problem of a disrespectful militarized police force enforcing unconstitutional laws on nonviolent peaceful people will remain. I will gladly do “their job.”  I’d lose it very quickly as it is their responsibility not to enforce unconstitutional laws. I will not enforce unconstitutional laws. What you see now is a result of these “good men” doing their job while ignoring their responsibility. I work and have worked to change laws and legislatures as well as cops and departments.

No one is listening and everyone blames someone else.

Seems riots are the result and that is unfortunate. You can’t treat pneumonia with cough drops. The cough is not the problem. Responsibility must be taken, from the  Top down or bottom up. If police are the bottom? Their refusal to take part is necessary. A responsibility that seems to be ignored and somehow celebrated.

Just doing my job” where in history have we heard that?

It ends very badly, then and now.

Protectin’ and Servin’

Political Requirements: Expert liar and profane sarcasm

 

In the age of modern technology, one has come to understand that anything we say or do, can
be easily verified and documented, by the simple click of the mouse. Our Republican form of government has been “of the people, by the people, and for the people” since it’s inception. Despite the hope of our Founding Fathers, it didn’t take long after the formation of our Nation, that political parties started to form.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned the nation that the spirit of a political party serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. From our country’s inception, we formed compromises between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists. It was then, that started the divide of the people into political parties.

Fast forward to modern-day America. Our Nation is in a state of divide between the radical right and liberal left, with the more sensible middle, being the so-called “Liberty Movement.” These folks have been mocked and ridiculed in the most sardonic manner. During the 2012 Presidential elections, one would have thought that the Republicans would welcome, with open arms, the amount of young people that were clambering to the party; It was quite the opposite actually. Nevertheless, most people within the “Liberty Movement” have been turned off to political parties, in search of a place that will accept them, with open arms. Some went the direction of Anarchists, some went the route of Anarcho-Capitalism, but there are a lot of us that decided to stay. We stayed because we saw hope. The hope that we can redirect the Republican Party back to its core principles of Freedom, Prosperity, Vision, Strength, and Future. That seems to be something they like to boast about on the National GOP website.

Whether it’s on the National, State or Local level, people have come to expect political parties to be fair and consistent. I started getting involved in politics after my enlistment was over and I moved back to my hometown. To my astonishment, I came home to find my county to be completely swamped in debt, to the tune of $96 million dollars. This prompted me to look deeper into the reasoning behind this debt. In my quest to find the source, I began to see a trend. Every single person on the local Board of Commissioners has always ran on the Republican ticket. I found this completely ironic, in that, anytime you hear the name “Republican,” you also hear the word “Conservative” that is quick to follow. How can one claim to be a “conservative” whilst taking out loans, in the name of the citizens that they claim to represent?

The Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian Parties are indeed semi-private organizations. This brings me to my next point.

In a meeting that was held by the Republican Women of Forsyth County (RWFC), Citizen Journalst, Nydia Tisdale (www.aboutforsyth.com) was triple-teamed in a show of intimidation by Peggy Green, Carla Radzikinas, and Carolyn Hall Fisher on April 16, 2014. In the video you can clearly see what appears to be three women conspiring to have Tisdale kicked out of the venue. A few moments later, Tisdale was approached by the trio, and demanded that she leave the restaurant. Keep in mind, the RWFC has published this event as “Open to the Public” on their website as well as on Forsyth County News. According to Tisdale, “Contrary to statements by Peggy Green — Norman’s Landing owner Bill Norman, did NOT ask me to leave. He said that they don’t want you to record. Guest speaker candidate Susan Zereini said that she wanted me to record. Mr. Norman told us to work it out — he was busy running his restaurant and did not want to get in the middle of it.”

Then, the TRUE motive of the trio is made known, acting as the spokeswoman for the group, Green states:

“Will you turn off the camera please, you’re not wanted here.”

further stating,

“We do not like your tactics; we do not like your strong, attack, tactics (sic) so please leave; or we will go get Norman and he will personally escort you out”

Now comes Fisher (VP of the FCRW and 2nd Vice Chair of the FCRP) : “This is just a women’s group” interrupted by Radzikinas who says “This is not an official group, its a women’s gathering”

Again, Tisdale reiterates that it was on their official website as “OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

And wouldn’t you know it, Green didn’t like what Tisdale had to say and say’s… Ready for this?  “So sue us, you can’t stay…

FCRW

In a bitter fit of rage, Green then goes on to assault Tisdale, by hitting her on her arm and grabbing at her camera, as if to try and snatch it off of the tri-pod.

 

Is this what being part of the Republican Party or its affiliates is all about?

Evidently so and here’s why I say that…

Below is letter sent to Tisdale, by the Chairman of the Forsyth County Republican Party:

From: Bradley Wilkins
To: Nydia Tisdale
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Subject: Recent video posts on Face book‏ (sic)

Nydia,

Based on your continued social media posting of video’s selectively edited for political purposes, I no longer view your body of work as Journalism.

Going forward, I will consider your video and writing efforts to be political activism and not journalism. As such, I will not grant you the same access to Forsyth County Republican Party Meetings that I offer to journalists.

Please consider this a formal request to refrain from videoing or recording any meetings of the Forsyth County Republican Party.

Thank you.

Brad Wilkins
Chairman
Forsyth County Republican Party
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In keeping with the spirit of the Republican Women of Forsyth County, Wilkins decided to sucker punch Tisdale, as well. Adding insult to injury, he states “Going forward, I will consider your video and writing efforts to be political activism and not journalism. As such, I will not grant you the same access to Forsyth County Republican Party Meetings that I offer to journalists.”

Bradley.Wilkins_Chairman_Forsyth.County.Georgia.Republican.Party_06-21-2014Not only do these people think that they can assault you, but they also think that they get to decide who/what journalism is. In a show of bigotry, Wilkins states he will consider her video and writing efforts as “political activism and not journalism.” It’s a shame that someone who considers himself to be a “Conservative” and has taken the leadership role of the Republican Party of Forsyth County, thinks that HIS decision completely nullifies the 1st Amendment as well as the many Supreme Court rulings that protect this inalienable right. As far as I’m concerned, activism comes in MANY different shapes and forms, to include being the Chairman of the local Boys and Girls Club, also known as the Republican Party. So, does this mean that Bradley is going to ban himself and his cohorts from attending their own meetings? Or does it mean that The Forsyth County Republican Party is only going to allow you to receive the information that THEY want you to hear?

You know, the same kind of controlled media that took place in Nazi Germany or the “Speak No Evil” Communist China. Lets be honest here, if you’re going to censor one but allow others, is that not exactly what you’re replicating, Bradley?

The moral of the story is this: All too often we hear the folks of both parties stating how they want to attract “young folks” to be on their team. On the surface, that sounds amazing but as you start digging into this “social club” they don’t want you to be a part of this club at all! Its merely a sad attempt at trying to appear as though they all want to fight for the rights and freedoms. If you have a differing opinion, you’re shut out. If you don’t follow the orders of the elders, you don’t belong and if you actually hold the values of the Republican Party, to a higher moral standard, well, that’s just totally unacceptable. Don’t you ever try to hold the very people that get to choose your delegates, alternate delegates, nominee’s to elected office to a higher moral standard. You will be locked out and labeled as an activist. Apparently, being an activist is now being held to the same equivalency as a “domestic terrorist.” After all, it IS the Republican Party that condoned the dismantling of your basic, Constitutional Rights, à la “The Patriot Act, Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

 

 

                               UPDATE

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Apparently, Tisdale has pressed charges in this case of Green committing simple battery against her at the event posted above.
Below is the audio from an investigator from the Forsyth County Sheriffs Office. Note the third video (Sorry, it wont link directly to the page like the others no matter how hard I try) of the owner, Mr. Norman. His story is quiet different than the story of Green when she decided to start acting like a spoiled little child who was just told “NO, you CANNOT have any candy” by her mother. Peggy, you aren’t helping the perception of the Republican Party these days. Might I recommend you leave this side of you at home, tucked away from the prying eyes of the general public from now on?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMcPbiNd_mA&list=UU29-afi-T27Bc2rpj4Y7c4g&index=7

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM “DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE” IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE. By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

I wanted to post this article by Mr. Jack McLamb for the education/debate surrounding your “Right to Travel” and the government turning your basic right of movement from a right into a privileged.

The interesting verdict in this article is that, it is backed with multiple case law citations.

In 2011, Georgia Representative, Bobby Franklin (R), introduced a bill “Right to Travel Act” which would have essentially made drivers licenses for residents in the state, obsolete.

The bill stated:

11 (1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and
12 highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers
13 cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires
14 the surrender of an inalienable right;

Aslo,

21 (3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of
22 Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate
23 these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a
24 crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this
25 exercise of constitutional rights;

So, I question you: Why have we allowed our government to run our lives into slavery, without a fight?

________________________________________________________________________________

 

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

 

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 – “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”

This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be – If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as – licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of  Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
“the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point – that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

– Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the “letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are –

#1 – by lawfully amending the constitution,

or #2 – by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

“…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)

We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”.

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. “laws of no effect”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.“

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”

What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”

Every police officer should keep the following court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:

“THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME.” – Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

The Semblance of Freedom that is the 28th Amendment

redblue_pill

“My pity to he who fights every day for a liberty for all that he never truly experiences for himself.”

Freedom is Choice

In the broad scope of things, we may have lost sight of what it is we’re truly fighting for. I’ve said before to avoid listing the numerous freedoms we’ve lost, and to focus on what freedom we will or will not have in our future. The reason for this is because it all boils down to one thing. Freedom.

Like many of you, I grew up hearing and telling others that this was a “Free” country. The reality is that it’s not. There is nothing free in this country. In fact, what once was the very symbol of freedom is nothing more than scattered memories and images turned sour by the Elite. The definition of freedom becomes diluted with concepts of what freedom looks like, rather than what is really is.

There’s no real difficulty in moving the nation into true freedom, but the process demands we first acknowledge what freedom is. Not only are we tasked with redefining the term, but to embrace it and the challenges that come with fulfilling it. Now, I’m not a dictionary, and I’m not even using one, but I think when it comes to defining “freedom” we can all agree that CHOICE is an all-inclusive definition that satisfies what we’re after. Am I right?

Mob Rule

Consider everything you do in life ultimately rests on a choice. You have the choice:

– to get up and go to work, or NOT;
– to go spend money on a movie, or NOT;
– to have babies; and so on and so forth.

Basically, you have unlimited choices. They may be affected by such things as finances, scheduling, or some other personal reason; but the fact remains they are your choices to make. And it’s great when you have that freedom, right? That is, until they stop becoming your choice to make.

One of the factors that contribute immensely to the choices we make comes down who gets hurt the most by a decision. Most often, the choices that we want to make, or even that may be the best decision to make, are overridden by the amount of guilt we feel about hurting or disappointing others. In the end, your choice is to go along with whatever everyone else decided was good for them.

This is the very concept that leads to mob rulings. Take the one person out of the many who chooses NOT to do what the rest are doing. That person chooses alternatively, because that is their right.

But what happens?

Appeals start firing off: No! You chose wrong! You must it do it this way, or you’ll be LABELED.

Now you have a mob of people who are somehow injured by your choice to NOT comply, and they in turn run to their legislators and cry about how hurt they’ve been and what they want done to assure themselves they will never endure such hurt again.

Of course, the powers that be recognize this as voter turnout and thusly legislate on behalf of the mob.

It’s tactics like this that made your ownership of that AR-15 a threat. The mob doesn’t like your weapon. It’s scary and bad things happen when it goes off sometimes. So they cry for stricter gun laws, and the next thing you know, you’re a felon.

That’s mob rulers pushing freedom right off a cliff with a boulder tied to the foot. They simply want freedom dead.

The 28th Amendment

Perhaps as a result of my not focusing on listing the losses, I hadn’t realized just how under attack The Constitution is. Not just those first two amendments, but ALL of them.

Brought to light recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, the 28th amendment has been building (according to Snopes.com), both in momentum and lunacy, since 2009. Initially an amendment to address congressional members, the document has blossomed into a full scale attack on the Constitution of the United States. Acting as a general “cure-all” for the liberal-minded, the document reduces America to the status of a neutered dog, in order to reduce the amount of hurt felt by those who cannot accept that people are free and have choices.

Closer Examination

Among the first items addressed in this amendment are your first and second amendments. Your 1A, it’s gone; and, with what’s left of it cannot coexist in the same region as your 2nd amendment. So, if you wish to protest (which, if you can find something left to protest in the list of things you are prohibited from protesting about, I commend you), you must do so with your words, and not your protection of those words. Good luck with that.

The next article seeks to eradicate—I mean, regulate religion. From defining such words as “religious” and demanding they remove them from all things “public” including buildings, money, books, and basically your mouth; this Article of the amendment will make you shake your head. Of particular mention in this area of the amendment, I would ask you to look at Article II Section 3, which reads:

            Section 3. The United States of America is not a Christian nation nor a nation promoting any religion. Instead, the United States of America is a nation of Freedom, Equality, Justice and Equal Rights for ALL people.

Color me a conspiracy theorist, but are you beginning to see what’s going on here? Words are important, as they are received by the human mind and processed in particular ways. This section very clearly denounces the Christian heritage of America. Over any other religion chosen to specifically call out, the writers chose Christianity. Over time, mob rules such as these turn into “you are prohibited from practicing Christianity.” Ask a witch how she knows, cause just as the Pagans and the Natives were thwarted for their beliefs, so shall be the believers of Christianity if legislation like this is adopted.

Some other interesting details throughout this document include placing requirements for education and testing on Government Officials that even our founding fathers would fail. It ought to frighten you that these requirements include holding a bachelor’s degree, and passing several mental and physical evaluations. Essentially, the liberal unicorn chasers want to believe that their educational system is so valuable that no one holding office could possibly be good for us if they don’t have a piece of paper to prove they received it.  I’m not going to point out that many of history’s greatest achievements (including the founding of our country) stem from people who were mentally ill, and/or on drugs.  Considering the way of America is leaning on the passing of laws to make doing drugs LEGAL, I would wonder what pool of people that will leave us with to CHOOSE to lead us.

I can guarantee you one thing; by the standards listed in this document, whoever is left to lead this country will certainly have no religious background. Because there’s a requirement for that. Religious leaders are BARRED from running for public office or positions within public education for a period of time AFTER they have chosen to LEAVE their position of faith. Once again, asking people to denounce their faith in order to participate. And if you can’t comply with this, you will be subject to impeachment proceedings, or if you are running, your campaign will be ignored and prohibited from participating in political debates and functions. Let’s put it like this: NO FAITH FOR YOU! If your faith is speaking out loud, it’s too loud for public.

Are you getting a little mad yet? They have articles that cover education. If you didn’t think education was at a loss yet, just wait. This document outlines the provisions of government funding only to public schools. No charter schools can receive government funding. Or put simply: no funding to any source of education that could potentially educate on a religious topic. Not every charter school is a religion-based school, but thanks for limiting our choices to receive ONLY a public education unless we can afford something different. That ought to keep the religious population in check.

If that doesn’t work, certainly our liberal modification of the “acceptable” text books will help you to comply. Adding to the absurdity of this amendment, Article VIII Section 2 identifies that all educational material will be stripped of religious reference; in particular science education will convey only the idea of evolution and extrude the FACTS that other IDEAS exist. Because the only thing better than a child that learns is one that learns only what you want them to without asking questions. And for the checkers of the “other” box in the questionnaire regarding religion—who wants to answer those kind of questions, right?

The reality is, if you were truly interested in education and evolution, you wouldn’t be so scared of evolving. Education is acknowledgement of all the contributions that lead us to think, believe, and act in a certain way regardless of where they come from – science, religion, or spirituality. To negate that these ideas have had any effect on the way the world works is to outlaw freedom in the form of prohibiting education, and aids in DE-EVOLVING our species. Knowledge is power, and should be embraced along with all the questions it comes with. The lack of education prohibits freedom in that it demands your CHOICE to be an uneducated one.

As usual this document also attacks prayer at school. The injured folks can’t bear to see your child sit in prayer, so they need to keep that at home. They want to take ‘the Federal Holiday known as Christmas’ and change the name to ‘Winter Holidays,’ because it does a better job of acknowledging that variety of celebrations we have. God-forbid someone wish you a merry fucking Christmas. Sorry, I’m getting mad now. Not because once upon a time the holiday was Pagan, anyway, but because once again (if it’s still not clear) the country is going toe to toe over something petty and ridiculous that will result in the harm of others. Why don’t we just suggest changing the name of the country while we’re at it?

Oh look, a section on reproduction. Which, I’m honestly going to let you embrace on your own, because I have had enough.

The Ramifications of Choices

Does any of this sound good to you? Laced with a puppies-and-kittens version of a potentially “peaceful” future, because we’ve wiped out the infringement religion places on us while also creating a shun for any who have a religious preference; this document outlines the semblance of freedom while actually destroying the very meaning of the word. If my CHOICE is to accept the terms of this document or NOT, then I CHOOSE NOT. I will not comply with these ideas, because they are a violation of my freedom to choose.

And when more of me CHOOSE not to comply, many will be injured by our choice. They will likely push harder. They will do so without realizing the damaging effects of their choice. And what are the damages?

Consider this… once you’ve complied, and denounced your faith in a higher power, and bought into the drugs that are now legal, and educated yourself and your children in the manner which has been outlined for you; what are you, but a member of an Orwellian society—conformed and obedient? That’s exactly what we’re headed for when we even consider documents such as the proposed 28th amendment.

It is preventable, though. When we embrace the freedom that is choice, we can choose not to comply. We can choose to practice our freedom as openly as we can regardless of who gets hurt over it, because that is our RIGHT as Americans, and as HUMAN BEINGS.

Of course, embracing your choice will come with challenges. You’ll have to choose to defend your choice against the tyrants and the mobs, or not. Whatever you choose to do, choose it and embrace it with all the challenges it comes with, or live a prisoner. I choose not to comply with the ideas presented in this document. I choose my freedom. What will you choose?

Sources:

Senator Ted Cruz Exposes Democratic Plan to Repeal First Amendment – http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Cruz-amendment-campaign-financing/2014/06/02/id/574515/?promo_code=165C6-1

The 28th Amendment (Full) http://politicalresearchdatabase.tumblr.com/post/36611972771

Snopes- http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

America Under Siege

NDAA

To what extent do you fear out of control government? Are you among those who see the overstepping of a tyrannical administration, or are you not aware of the world beyond what occurs in our own life? Regardless of your character type, do you ever consider that today just might be your last day? Or that it just might be at the hands of a ruthless tyrant by the title President of the United States?

Truth be told, whether that tyrant is this president or another down the line, the doorway for expulsion from this country is open and levied by one person: the POTUS. With directives and Acts paving the way of the future for our leaders to have the upper hand in all matters, the lives of every human being on this soil falls on the whim of a President. Thusly, it is the duty of every human being on this soil to wake up and get active.

In a Washington Times article that was released last week, the article outlines a 2010 directive that created presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest. The directive, at first glance, seems to be indifferent than any other directive that comes out of the Department of Defense. That is, until you dig a little deeper into the directive, that’s when you start to scratch our head.

In section 4 (a) the directive reads:

“This Directive shall be implemented consistent with national security objectives and military readiness.”

3(i) then goes on to state:

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the President in accordance with applicable law (e.g., chapter 15 of Reference (d)) or permitted under emergency authority, as described below (see DoDD 3025.12 (Reference (j)) and DoDD 5525.5 (Reference (c))

In 2012, the National Defense Authorization Act (N.D.A.A.) was signed into law. This was the infamous bill which contained Sections. 1021 and 1022 that authorized Congress to work in conjunction with the FISA Courts to determine whether someone is a “Domestic Terrorist” and what actions the Federal Government should take against them.  Deep within the N.D.A.A. is Section 1021 and 1022, is where we run into the “Counter-terrorism” sections of the bill. [Title X, Subtitle D] the authorization for the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, although the ability to indefinitely detain an individual has been in place since 2002.

The  Authorization for Use of Military Forces (AUMF) was signed into law under the Bush administration. In 2012, congress vested the power within themselves to “affirm” this power within themselves. In July of 2012, a study was conducted by the University of Maryland and partly paid for by the Department of Homeland Security, titled “National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism,” S.T.A.R.T. for short.

In their study, on pages 9 and 10, they listed the various “groups” in which would be considered “suspect” of being homegrown terrorists. These groups are referred to as “Dominant Ideologies” and include the following: Extreme Left – Wing, Extreme Right – Wing, Religious, Ethno-nationalist/Separatist  and Single Issue persons. In other words, everyone within the United States that might decide to redress their grievances with their government.

If you’re keeping up, the short of it is that the government just granted itself the right to be unconstitutional by detaining citizens that fit the government’s stereotype of home-grown bad guys; and further, can use the military (including drones) to squash supposed “threats”… to “national security.”

According to an article by the Washington Times released May 28, 2014, the latter was the very proposition put before the President regarding the “event” at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, NV.

“A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered  but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.”

 

While PANDA does not take an official stance on The Bundy Ranch incident, the evidence is clear as to what extreme the Federal Government is willing to go.

Perhaps if you don’t already, you should start counting your blessings every day that by the good graces of a tyrant you weren’t massacred for someone’s stereotyping you.

Despite the extreme effort that was taken by the militias on the ground to maintain peace, prominent members of the government, including Harry Reid, want to suggest that the actions that occurred in the desert of Bunkerville were at the hands of a chaotic group of “domestic terrorists“ threatening the national security. Other officials even negated the threat that the BLM initiated against citizens; for example: pushing people to the ground and pointing weapons at them. The very charges being rumored against members of the militia for standing up for the rights of his fellow man.

Although no weapons were fired, although no injuries (to the BLM or law enforcement, at least) were sustained, although no threats were ever made against the BLM or officers… This directive and Act came across the desk of the President as an option against American citizens who were standing up for their rights. Fortunately, he declined.

Thank, Obama Almighty, today those people will live to see another day. Tomorrow? Well, we’ll see.

See, the problem is not who the President is. The problem is that this is a power vested upon whoever the President is at the time. The N.D.A.A. is one of those evolutionary documents. The kind that the government loves, because they can alter it over and over again; taking, little by little, the rights of the nation, until finally, we can’t fight back and we’re ripe for the crushing.

Even if you don’t want to believe something like that would or could ever happen, you have to acknowledge the power is there, and eventually someone will test those waters. It’s inevitability, or they would not have adopted such legislation.

Article by: Jason Turner and Sabrina Black of www.zeninthecar.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.D.A.A. headed to the Senate. Who voted for it?

NDAA

 

ATLANTA, GA. – Government Bill H.R. 4435 (N.D.A.A) for Fiscal Year 2015 has overwhelmingly passed the House (325 – 98) and is headed for the Senate. In a weird turn of events, every member of Congress for the State of Georgia, with the exception of Congressman John Lewis (D), voted in favor of this bill.

H.R. 4435 is riddled big government spending to the tune of $602 billion and a continuation of the war effort in Afghanistan until FY2018.

In what seemed like a “no-brainer” (based on what we know from congressional members seeking higher office, each of them vehemently opposing this legislation), every congressman in the State of Georgia voted for this bill – with the exception of Congressman John Lewis.

In an interview with Congressman Paul Broun before the Savannah debate, he stated that the indefinite detention provisions were not in the 2014 N.D.A.A. and he was correct.

So, why am I attacking Broun? It’s simple: He made himself out to be a staunch opponent of just about anything N.D.A.A. I am here to prove that his assertions of opposition and my assertion of opposition are two very different things.

The previsions are in the Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF), which was created under George W. Bush. However, in 2012, Broun voted for H.R. 4310 N.D.A.A. 2012, which contained sections 1021 and 1022 in which Congress vested the power in themselves to authorize the indefinite detention of an American Citizen without due process of the law. Now that the bill has been changed, congress relinquished this power back to the president – and the N.D.A.A. only “upholds current law”, that being the AUMF.

So, the next time you hear anyone say that the N.D.A.A. doesn’t allow for the indefinite detention of American Citizens, you can call them out on their nonsense. You are now armed with the verifiable truth that the provisions remain, only in the hands of the President and the FISA courts.

In Section 1075, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act is again brought up, with continued authorization to allow the testing of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or as we like to call them, drones. Thanks to the 2012 N.D.A.A., congress mandated that 35,000 drones be integrated into our national airspace, by 2015.

In the North Georgia Mountains, Gilmer County residents fought back against the Federal Government and the private sector from taking control of the counties airport, preventing it from being used as a drone testing facility. Thanks to the late, Commissioner Randy Bell, the opposition to this program was successful in denying the State of Georgia, Georgia Tech Research Institute and Federal Government from obtaining the authorization by the Board of Commissioners to use their facility for such programs. However, the bill remains and they have moved on to other areas of the nation where they don’t need permission to use the lands in which they conduct the data-link testing.

One very important issue pertaining to this bill is found in Section 1216:

United States plan for sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces through the end of fiscal year 2018

Yes, you read that right. We are continuing the war effort in Afghanistan until FY2018. Contingency operations will continue for a very long time. American lives will continue to be lost and innocent men, women and children will continue to die via drone warfare.

We at zeninthecar will update you on the status of the bill as it moves through the Senate.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Many thanks to Shelia Aliens for the help editing this article! Be sure to visit her YouTube account and subscribe!

Video’s from above:

[su_youtube url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInYnV9Edcg”]

Zen interviews Congressman Paul Broun

[su_vimeo url=”https://vimeo.com/64638500″]

Commissioner Randy Bell (RIP Good fellow) meeting with Steve Justice over drones in Gilmer County.

H.R. 4435 (NDAA 2015) House Rules Committee Hearing

WASHINGTON– On Monday, May 19th, a hearing in the House Rules Committee was held pertaining to H.R. 4435, (National Defense Authorization Act, 2015) as Chairman Pete Sessions began with the introduction and opening remarks. Congressman McKeon, a retiring Republican Representative of California’s 25th District, was allowed to take to the mic and lay out an overview of what would be later seen as a bill of damning numbers and even more setbacks. In his opening statement, Mr. McKeon made mention of the cost of H.R. 4435, to the tune of $521 Billion allocated for National Defense and $79 Billion for overseas contingency, consistent with the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement. Mr. McKeon noted that there were 195 amendments offered (100 by the Republican’s and 95 by Democrats) of which 154 were adopted. The N.D.A.A. was passed out of committee with a unanimous 61-0 vote. McKeon noted that the bill would increase troop pay as well as the continued war effort in Afghanistan. In an attempt to broaden the bill, it was met with a setback. The Budget Control Act and the lack of resources stand in the way of the expansions that are included into this bill. According to McKeon,

“My principle that I have tried to stick to this year, in pushing forward, is, to Save as much as we could. We were given a budget by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s that cut more than we cut. What I’m hoping for next year (hopefully) we’ll do something about sequestration -Get something we can work with- better. Otherwise, next year is going to be very, VERY difficult.”

Congressman and Ranking Member Adam Smith, echoed Mr. McKeon on many of the major key points throughout his opening statements,

“…Continues to fund our troops who are still at war in Afghanistan. What I really like about this bill is that it recognizes that our challenges, right now, are primarily from terrorism and asymmetric warfare, therefore, prioritizes the Special Operations Command and also Cyber Security Threat. ” 

Although the two members echoed one another on many of the details surrounding the defense budgetary burden laid out before them, it seemed as though they were both willing to pull from one, account to save the other. Smith noted that the administration put forward a series of changes, which includes the BRAC Amendment, which would continue to close bases within the United States when the legislation hits the chamber floor. They have also made reduction in certain compensation, as well as lay up 11 ships and discontinue the A-10 Warthog as well as rearrange the National Guard and Reserve issues.

“…for the most part, they got rid of those changes and found the money, creatively, for 2015. The problem is, it creates a bow wave. 2016/2017, we’re not going to be able to do that.

By “creatively” one only has to listen a few more seconds on the hearing to understand exactly what is about to happen. As Smith put it,

“The problem with that is, it creates a bow wave”

Yet again, we are patching a hole in the side of the ship, with cotton balls. If it is unsustainable and you can identify this, well before the implementation, why are we even considering the option? Smith also suggested if we don’t like the cuts made by the administration, we’re going to have to put up alternatives and its worth noting that the administration asked for an additional $28 Billion that they didn’t get. Offering up two amendments, BRAC and an amendment to lay up 11 cruisers and 3 amphibious ships, Smith suggested,

 “If we want eleven carriers, we’ve gotta save money somewhere.” 

All of this on the heels of the President making an impromptu visit to Afghanistan on Sunday evening. He stopped by Bagram Air Field with a “mission” to thank the members of the Armed Services deployed in support of the operations of the ongoing war effort in Afghanistan. As the debate heats up over the budget and over the implementation of one of the most despicable legislation’s in modern history, just short  of The Enabling Act, passed by Hitler in 1933 followed by the Reichstag Fire Decree, so goes the N.D.A.A.  These bills were passed in Germany with little to no resistance and virtually no public outcry. History has a weird way of repeating itself. Zen will stay on top of this story as it develops and you will be the first to receive notification of any and all changes that take place. Until then, keep your head up and your heart open. We haven’t lost this battle just yet.

Skeletons of the Media Closet

10338766_804655549546646_793167583_n

Isn’t it just what our future needs – a drug dealer in a political seat? Well, what do you expect from a Black American?

OUCH! That’s harsh, isn’t it? Slanderous. The epitome of racist. It’s more saddening that these are the tactics of those running for public office. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that once you enter the public arena, anything goes – even your skeletons – right out of the closet. At least, for the person with the fattest wallet.

Despite their ability to focus on personal strength and what campaigners truly bring to the table, it’s much easier (and likely more affordable) to call out the flaws of opponents. TRUTH in reporting simply does not pay well, or produce the hype that our mainstream media seeks to boost their ratings.

Instead, the media (in the pockets of more financially formidable opponents) will gladly report on the dark places a person has been to in their life. They do it without care for how it will affect runners, or the people for whom these candidates are running for.

graysoneducation

Rob Cunningham of “About Common Core” presents the Education Freedom Award to U.S. Senate candidate Minister Derrick E Grayson. Mr. Grayson is the ONLY Senate candidate in the state of Georgia to receive this award. Photo courtesy of About Common Core

It’s very true that Minister Derrick Grayson has a past – a more than 20-year old history that he may never fully live down. Who doesn’t? Who hasn’t in their youth done something they have only lived to regret?

However, isn’t it more likely that if the media has to dig as far back as 20 years  to find that crumb of dirt on a person, it’s probably because he learned from his mistake since being PARDONED  by Former Georgia Governor, Sonny Perdue  and has moved on with new purpose?

It just doesn’t make “good” news to report on one’s growth from an experience.

Ratings are everything in a world of the “deaf, dumb and blind.

1.) Here’s an example of how media is bought and paid for.

2.)  Here’s what actually got reported.

(note ZENINTHECAR.COM  field reporter, Jason Patrick, in this video recording Mr. Castelan during the interview with Cliven Bundy.)

Although, being the absolute case with Mr. Grayson – a man who saw his share of struggle in life and turned it around – you won’t find this being reported by the media. His wallet is just not fat enough to make a million dollar offer to reporters for TRUTH.

Don’t ignore the negligence of our mainstream media. The bias in their reporting is immensely a direct relation to the numerous problems our country has faced, is facing, and will continue to face until WE THE PEOPLE stand up for what is right.

Derrick Grayson is a Black American that has battled at points in his life not unlike many of the Black American communities do to this very day. His progression from a past – in which he served time AND received pardon – ought not to be viewed so horrendously. Rather it should be seen as the inspirational opportunity that it is – not just to America, but to the Black communities of our country, that desperately need more strong, intellectual, and life-changing ROLE MODELS.

But this isn’t news. It’s certainly not news that sells. If you want biased news that sells – stick to mainstream.

TRUTH is a non paying job, and that’s all you’ll find here from the hearts of those that believe in one man’s proposed future. If we’ve reached you, we’re doing our jobs, unpaid and with utmost respect and faith in Minister Derrick Grayson.

“But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them,  He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

 

This article was a collaborated between Sabrina Black and  Jason T.