SHADE (Full-length Motion Picture)

Shade exposes the true power structure embedded in our global reality, showing the true controllers their plans to Geo-engineer our planet and control the populace.

Visit http://www.shadethemotionpicture.com to order a DVD, rent or download the film.





Tweet

Man's Fight With Serial Killer Teaches Lesson on Cops and Gun Laws In NY (VIDEO)

The Supreme Court has held that police have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. This story is a classic example of why citizens should never give up their right to bear arms.




Tweet

Voting in America

This is a repost that I have made several times, but it is as poignant as ever on yet another pointless voting day.

This first video came out at the end of last week. Now of course, the implications are a bit disturbing. But I couldn't help but laugh at how utterly stupid this young girl is. I weep for our future.

Some people have blamed Republicans for carrying out a deliberate campaign of voter fraud, but I think this is clearly a case of just how completely retarded young Americans have become. When it comes to real election fraud, the political overlords don't waste their time with the piss-ants on the street, as you will see below.


The truth is though, as scary as that bit was, there are much more sinister plots afoot when it comes to selecting our leaders.

Those of us who are old enough to remember will certainly recall the muddled and confused results in Florida, when it was decided there that George "Dubya" Bush would become the next President of the United States in 2000. Some folks still contend that Al Gore actually won the election. Whatever the actual count turned out to be down there, the Supreme Court finally stepped in to crown Dubya the new POTUS.

As the years have clicked by and technology advances, it has only become more easy to manipulate an election, and to cover up the fraud.

Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was proven to be significantly different than the published results. Rep. Feeney was also the lobbyist for Yang Enterprises, the company who delivered the program.

So does it come down to a technology war between Republicans and Democrats? Hardly. The fraud is being perpetrated against you, the people, the voter, not in the battle between one politician and another. They already know who the winner is going to be, just like in a WWE wrestling match. Or at least the true power-brokers know who the winner will be, even if the contestants themselves don't. The whole idea here is to give the American public the illusion of choice. And doing that, is really no easy task when you have hundreds of millions of voters and a whole apparatus of well-meaning citizens participating in the voting process trying to make it as accurate as possible. The illusion of democracy must be complete in order to maintain control.

Nevertheless, we see not only that the technology is available, but that is is being used to alter the outcomes of elections. Especially in "close" contests where they make the average citizen really feel like their vote was so much more important than they ever realized. In reality, our leaders are not E-lected, they are SE-lected, by power-brokers operating behind closed door, in secret meetings, like those of the so-called Bilderberg group.

That mysterious cabal of the power-elite has met every year since 1954, almost never in the same place twice, and usually only once every four years in North America. That pattern was broken when they met for the second time at a Marriott hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, with just a year in between a meeting held in Canada. Coincidentally enough, they met at the same hotel again this year, another election year, just outside of Washington DC.

In the run-up to the 2008 Presidential elections, Hillary Clinton was running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, when the two of them suddenly disappeared from public view and dumped the press in order to hold a secret meeting. Some believed that they might have met at her house in Washington, but that was later proven false. Although their whereabouts were never proven, or admitted to, it is widely believed that the two met in secret with the Bilderberg group, and many also believe that it was decided at that meeting that Barack Obama would become the next President of the United States.

Obamacare and the Police State

So as the government shutdown continues more and more memes are popping up about it. Figured maybe I would put in my two-cents on the matter finally.

First, let me say I do not support Obamacare. Not because it is socialist, but because it is fascist. This isn't about nationalizing healthcare, it is about mandating our participation in capitalism. Requiring us to purchase a product from a private company. Though I am no Lefty, I have to admit that at this point, I would sooner accept government hospitals and doctors, than a mandate to participate in a system that has royally screwed us without vaseline for the past two decades with insane cost increases.

Why is a so-called "Leftist" President and a Democrat, forcing us to participate in what amounts to highway robbery by layers, pharmaceutical companies, and most of all those damned insurance companies? A program that was originally implemented in Massachusetts by Obama's last Presidential opponent, the Republican, Mitt Romney. Now more than ever it should be clear to the American people that political ideals mean nothing in the face of The Agenda being visited on us by globalists and banker scum.

At the same time though, I want to talk about another facet of this evil, the now ubiquitous police state. Like in Fascist Italy, and even more so in Nazi Germany, these extreme right-wing measures coincided with the build up of a totalitarian police-state apparatus through which all dissent was silenced, and eventually exterminated.

Police-state Captain Six, of what speaketh thou?

Well, it really doesn't get much more obvious than the dry-run for total and utter martial law than what happened in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing where innocent civilians were ripped from their homes in true Gestapo fashion, door to door.

Let's cut to the chase here now. This is the pic that got me riled up tonight.

So what exactly is a non-essential employee? Certainly not the police who just shot an unarmed woman at the nation's Capitol. Not the NSA watching my every keystroke as I write this piece. Not the park rangers patrolling national parks that have been closed, in order to bar civilians from public property. (As if we needed the government to take a walk in the woods in the first place.)

Now this got me to thinking about the non-essential nature of even the so-called "essential" workers in the government. The non-essential nature of the police-state we live in. Everything from suspected child molesters molesting kids at airports on your dime, through the TSA, to the government extortion scheme known as the War on Drugs.

When Americans think of a police-state, they tend to think of places like Communist China. But despite the fact that they have nearly 4 times as many people as America, they actually have fewer prisoner. Not per-capita mind you, literally fewer prisoners. Per capita, we lead the world by far. We have only 5% of the total human population on the planet, yet 1 out of every 4 people in prison on Earth, live in an American prison.

So let's really cut to the chase here now, when we are talking about non-essentials. No one really wants to talk about the real cost to taxpayers to enslave ourselves, so there really aren't too many studies to go by. But there was one implemented in the state of Maryland a few years ago, that was quite enlightening. I believe this is something that should be done annually, in every state, and of course by Federal law agencies as well. But since we don't have that sort of clarity and accountability from our government. Let this serve as an example, to show you where your money is really going.

(Disclaimer: The following quoted text is presented for educational and conversational purposes only. as part of the larger theme presented. Rreaders are encouraged to read the original text and related material at reason.com.)

4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day

Maryland's SWAT transparency bill produces its first disturbing results

Radley Balko | March 1, 2010

 Cheye Calvo's July 2008 encounter with a Prince George's County, Maryland, SWAT team is now pretty well-known: After intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery service warehouse, police completed the delivery, in disguise, to the address on the package. That address belonged to Calvo, who also happened to be the mayor of the small Prince George’s town of Berwyn Heights. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package in from the porch, the SWAT team pounced, forcing their way into Calvo's home. By the time the raid was over, Calvo and his mother-in-law had been handcuffed for hours, police realized they'd made a mistake, and Calvo's two black Labradors lay dead on the floor from gunshot wounds.

As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.

Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.

Jackson, who's now running for county executive, is incapable of shame. He has tried to block Calvo's efforts to access information about the raid at every turn. Last week, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Ahalt ruled that Calvo's civil rights suit against the county can go forward. But Jackson has been fighting to delay the discovery process in that suit until federal authorities complete their own investigation into the raid. That would likely (and conveniently) prevent Prince George's County voters from learning any embarrassing details about the raid until after the election.

But there is some good news to report here, too. The Maryland state law, as noted, is the first of its kind in the country, and will hopefully serve as a model for other states in adding some much-needed transparency to the widespread use and abuse of SWAT teams. And some Maryland legislators want to go even further. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), for example, wants to require a judge's signature before police can deploy a SWAT team. Muse has sponsored another bill that would ban the use of SWAT teams for misdemeanor offenses. The latter seems like a no-brainer, but it's already facing strong opposition from law enforcement interests. Police groups opposed the transparency bill, too.

Beyond policy changes, the Calvo raid also seems to have also sparked media and public interest in how SWAT teams are deployed in Maryland. The use of these paramilitary police units has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, by 1,000 percent or more, resulting in the drastic militarization of police. It's a trend that seems to have escaped much media and public notice, let alone informed debate about policies and oversight procedures. But since the Calvo raid in 2008, Maryland newspapers, TV news crews, activists, and bloggers have been documenting mistaken, botched, or disproportionately aggressive raids across the state.

Lawmakers tend to be wary of questioning law enforcement officials, particularly when it comes to policing tactics. They shouldn't be. If anything, the public employees who are entrusted with the power to use force, including lethal force, deserve the most scrutiny. It's unfortunate that it took a violent raid on a fellow public official for Maryland's policymakers to finally take notice of tactics that have been used on Maryland citizens for decades now. But at least these issues are finally on the table.

Lawmakers in other states should take notice. It's time to have a national discussion on the wisdom of sending phalanxes of cops dressed like soldiers into private homes in search of nonviolent and consensual crimes.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

When considering the validity of the American police-state, and what your tax dollars are actually paying for, you might also consider these articles.

SWAT Get Medals For Shooting Innocent Family at Christmas

Crime-Lab Tech Who Acted As Judge Puts 34k Felons Back On Streets

First Known American Execution of Innocent Man Happens In Texas

101 Death-Row Inmates Proved Innocent








Tweet

Republican or Democrat?

This is a re-post from just about a year ago, but it seemed like a good time to re-post it. With Democrats and Republicans bickering back and forth about a fascist healthcare plan and the government shutdown, they still lose sight of the fact that it is all a show. The people bicker back and forth parroting the lines and talking points of their favorite pundits, but yet again, the real issues are entirely ignored. 

This first video came out at the end of last week. Now of course, the implications are a bit disturbing. But I couldn't help but laugh at how utterly stupid this young girl is. I weep for our future.

Some people have blamed Republicans for carrying out a deliberate campaign of voter fraud, but I think this is clearly a case of just how completely retarded young Americans have become. When it comes to real election fraud, the political overlords don't waste their time with the piss-ants on the street, as you will see below.


The truth is though, as scary as that bit was, there are much more sinister plots afoot when it comes to selecting our leaders.

Those of us who are old enough to remember will certainly recall the muddled and confused results in Florida, when it was decided there that George "Dubya" Bush would become the next President of the United States in 2000. Some folks still contend that Al Gore actually won the election. Whatever the actual count turned out to be down there, the Supreme Court finally stepped in to crown Dubya the new POTUS.

As the years have clicked by and technology advances, it has only become more easy to manipulate an election, and to cover up the fraud.

Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was proven to be significantly different than the published results. Rep. Feeney was also the lobbyist for Yang Enterprises, the company who delivered the program.

So does it come down to a technology war between Republicans and Democrats? Hardly. The fraud is being perpetrated against you, the people, the voter, not in the battle between one politician and another. They already know who the winner is going to be, just like in a WWE wrestling match. Or at least the true power-brokers know who the winner will be, even if the contestants themselves don't. The whole idea here is to give the American public the illusion of choice. And doing that, is really no easy task when you have hundreds of millions of voters and a whole apparatus of well-meaning citizens participating in the voting process trying to make it as accurate as possible. The illusion of democracy must be complete in order to maintain control.

Nevertheless, we see not only that the technology is available, but that is is being used to alter the outcomes of elections. Especially in "close" contests where they make the average citizen really feel like their vote was so much more important than they ever realized. In reality, our leaders are not E-lected, they are SE-lected, by power-brokers operating behind closed door, in secret meetings, like those of the so-called Bilderberg group.

That mysterious cabal of the power-elite has met every year since 1954, almost never in the same place twice, and usually only once every four years in North America. That pattern was broken when they met for the second time at a Marriott hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, with just a year in between a meeting held in Canada. Coincidentally enough, they met at the same hotel again this year, another election year, just outside of Washington DC.

In the run-up to the 2008 Presidential elections, Hillary Clinton was running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, when the two of them suddenly disappeared from public view and dumped the press in order to hold a secret meeting. Some believed that they might have met at her house in Washington, but that was later proven false. Although their whereabouts were never proven, or admitted to, it is widely believed that the two met in secret with the Bilderberg group, and many also believe that it was decided at that meeting that Barack Obama would become the next President of the United States.

Marines.com Hacked by Syria

via: ZeroHedge

Following President Obama's decision to pass the blame buck to Congress (and its oh-so-great track record of making decisions), the Syrian Electronic Army has struck again. This time right at the heart of the matter - defacing the "Marines.com" website. As The Independent reports, the US Marines received a message calling for support from their "brothers, the Syrian army soldiers" – in the form of a web attack changing the homepage of the official Marines recruitment site to a page entitled "“Hacked by SEA." The message also stated, "Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al-Qaida insurgents," which seems to fit with many of their perspectives as we have noted previously. Full text and screenshot below...

Full text:

"This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA"

This will not be the last of the SEA though, as the BBC interviewed the hackers (via email) and a spokesman said the SEA had "many surprises" to come. He added: "Military intervention in Syria has many consequences and will affect the whole world. Our main mission is to spread truth about Syria and what is really happening."









Tweet

Ron Paul Cheated Out Of Nomination by 'Powers That Be' Obama Says in Leaked Tape

Also see:

Elections Are Frauds








Tweet

It May Soon Be a Felony to Annoy a Cop in NY

You read that right. The NY State Senate has passed a bill that is now before the Assembly, which will make it a felony, punishable by four years in prison, "TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM A... POLICE OFFICER."

Many opponents are concerned that this law will be misused in a number of ways, but particularly against citizens and reporters who film police encounters. Police routinely abuse laws that are on the books already. Everything from arbitrary laws such as disorderly conduct and obstruction of police administration, to resisting arrest and assault on a police officer.

In this incident, a deaf and mentally handicapped woman was charged with felony assault on a police officer for the crime of acting as the officer's punching bag. In this case, a trucker was beaten within an inch of his life for the crime of obstruction, and resisting arrest. And in this case, a man was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he was shot by police in his own bed in the middle of the night. Police had raided the house with a no-knock warrarnt on the suspicion that it was a drug house, but only discovered personal use paraphernalia after shooting the man numerous times.

There are thousands of incidents like these which show police abuse of authority with the existing laws that are already in place. Even cases that defy logic entirely, like being arrested for resisting arrest. How can one be arrested for resisting arrest, if there is no other charge to justify an arrest in the first place?

New York lawmakers have justified their proposal as follows:

JUSTIFICATION:  Police officers all across this state put their  lives on  the  line  every  day  to protect the people of New York. New York State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that  protect  the police   from   becoming  victims  of  criminals.  Far  too  many  law enforcement officers are being harassed, injured,  even  killed  while honoring  their  commitment  to  protect  and  serve  this  state. The Legislature has a responsibility to do everything we  can  to  protect our  brave  heroes,  our police officers, from violent criminals. This legislation contributes to that premise.

As far as the notion that police officers are "putting their lives on the line" goes, this doesn't seem to be a a reasonable justification for making the police a privileged class protected by their own special set of laws that the average citizen does not enjoy. Fisherman are putting their lives on the line every day, in order to bring you fish-sticks and crab legs. They have the most dangerous job in America, followed by loggers. In fact, police officers rarely make the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs in America, yet cabbies, truckers, even refuse truck workers are more likely to be killed at work than a police officer.

If we are going to give police officers this special protection, perhaps we should also demand that the police be held especially accountable for crimes which violate the public trust.

I propose that we make it a felony, to commit a crime, while employed as a police officer, and especially crimes committed while in uniform or on duty. All too often, we see just the opposite. Rather than police being held accountable for crimes and betrayal of the public trust, they are given special privilege and shown gross favoritism in every phase of the accountability process. Doesn't the Legislature have every responsibility to do everything they can to protect the citizens of this state, before giving special privilege and protection to a select group of individuals?

The following links will show you just how unbalanced justice really is, between we the people, and they, the stormtroopers of the privileged class.

What Can We Learn From Criminal Complaints Against Cops?

Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time

D.A.'s Office Complicit in Brutality Coverup

SWAT Get Medals For Shooting at Innocent Family in Botched Raid

Cop Made Chief After Conviction for Negligent Fatal Shooting of Motorist

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control






Tweet

Child Rapists In Power (Conspiracy of Silence, Banned Video)

Tweet

Police Will Not Protect You

CAUTION: Extreme Violence

Also see:

Police Have No Duty to Protect You


Tweet

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control?

The fact that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not armed when police opened fire on him is yet another disturbing revelation in how that case has been handled.

Boston Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed

For some perspective here, let's think about a few other modern countries. In Britain, police don't even carry guns. Or what about Germany? A country that has, historically, not been averse to violence or authoritarianism. Like just about any modern nation, Germany also has plenty of violent crime on their streets as well. But as you watch the following clip, keep an interesting little fact in mind. In 2011, across the entire country of Germany, police only fired a total of 85 bullets.

VIDEO LINK

While some might argue that police don't have to be as aggressive in places like England, because of severe restrictions on gun ownership, keep in mind, again, that the suspect here was not armed. Also keep in mind that in places like Switzerland, crime is extremely low even when compared to other European nations, yet they have the third highest per-capita gun ownership in the world.

While some have argued that what we saw happen out in Boston was not proof that we live in a police-state, because it "doesn't happen every day" those people are making several critical flaws in their thinking.

First, when we see police going door to door storming houses without warrants and ripping people from their homes, it really doesn't make any difference at all how often it happens. It never should have happened at all. That fact that it has happened once, means that it can happen again at any time. We have crossed that line now, into an era where the Constitution is no longer the law of the land, but rather an arbitrary guideline which can be violated for whatever reason the government chooses. This is the very thing our forefathers warned us about, and precisely what the Constitution was put in place to prevent.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." -Samuel Adams

Families Ripped From Homes By Police In Watertown

Over the course of this one terror event alone, we have seen police completely toss aside the 4th Amendment with a warrantless search and seizure of the homes of an entire community in the name of  "public safety." Yet police had no regard for public safety, or justice and due process for that matter, when they tried to kill an unarmed teenager. If he is in fact guilty of any involvement at all, he may have had information critical to public safety, such as the locations of undetonated bombs, details of a larger plot, names of unidentified accomplices planning further attacks, and so forth.

Police Have No Duty to Protect You

To those of us with an understanding of the Constitution, of history, and a deep appreciation for liberty it is outright sickening that the public discourse is focused on when and where the abridgements of liberty should be allowed, rather than holding the police accountable for these depraved violations. Held accountable in the same manner perhaps, and to the same standard that our Founding Fathers held against British tyrants. All the King's men, those agents of tyranny, were shot and driven into the sea. Every American soldier who has ever fought and shed blood in the name of the United States since then, has done so to ensure that we would never again see tyranny in these lands. They fought and died to protect, to guarantee that we, the people would never again be subject to the very crimes being perpetrated against the people today by our own government.

But what we saw in Boston is not isolated incident either. Which brings us to our second flaw in the reasoning of those who might say that this event was unprecedented, and therefore somehow excusable. Those who might say "it doesn't happen every day" are either open apologists for tyranny, or plainly ignorant of the ongoing abuses of public trust by authorities in this country.

Folks in poor inner-city communities will tell you that this sort of thing can happen whenever a cop is killed. That police will swarm in, put a neighborhood on lock-down, and go door-to-door searching homes without a warrant. These sorts of details never make it to the mainstream media though, mostly because no one really cares what happens to poor people and no one really believes what they have to say. It's only shocking today because such action happened in a quiet suburb. News of a cop being killed doesn't garner the same intense national media coverage as a terrorist bombing either.

It doesn't just take a cop getting killed though, for the police to practice 4th Amendment violations. This video shows that it is not only a daily occurrence on the streets of New York (and almost certainly most US cities) but that these violations are policy.

VIDEO LINK

Also see: Police State of Mind 

America has even gone so far to establish an entire agency specifically dedicated to violating the 4th Amendment. The TSA are mostly known for their oppressive airport security measures, but have also been deployed at bus stations, on trains, and we should expect to see their influence grow in the coming years.

Strip-Searching and Terrorizing Children

Submit to Sexual Degradation at the Hands of Overlords

TSA Memo is Bombshell Invalidation of Airport Security

From this information we see that violating the Constitution is everyday business for authorities, but that still doesn't quite evoke the same Orwellian imagery as we saw with armored vehicles, paramilitary troops swarming over Watertown, MA. But again, this too is actually an everyday occurence, even if it is not concentrated in a single neighborhood.

Disturbing Results of SWAT Transparency Bill

In that link you will see that the police have been drastically militarized in the past few decades. In Maryland alone, military-grade force was deployed 4.5 time per day in 2009. The majority of these instances where state-sanctioned paramilitary violence was brought to bear, non-violent citizens were the target, many of them simply accused of misdemeanor offenses.

Here are just a few more examples among the thousands of cases, where SWAT raids went disastrously wrong:

SWAT Get Medals After Shooting At Innocent Family in Botched Raid

Man Shot Dead By Home Invaders

SWAT Kill Marine Veteran In Front of His Family

The only way to prevent these tragedies, the only way to preserve liberty and justice, is to hold the police accountable when things go wrong, intentionally or not. The agents of law-enforcement must be held accountable when they stray from the law, to a higher standard even than a common citizen would be, not to  the lesser standard practiced today. Indeed as we have just seen, the police are even given medals for shooting at innocent families instead of being held accountable. Yet if you were to make  similar mistake, it is a near certainty that you would be shown no leniency by any court.

Take the case of Tracy Ingle for example. This man was shot five times by police, in the middle of the night, in his own bed, after they raided his home with a no-knock warrant. Not realizing that the intruders were police, he made the tragic mistake of pointing a non-functioning firearm at them in an attempt to scare off what he thought were robbers. He was lucky to survive, and yet he has been sent to prison for 18 years, for simply pointing a broken gun at police.

Tracy Ingle - 18 Years In Prison

In this case, police refused to identify themselves while pounding at the wrong door, but when an innocent man answered with a legally owned gun in his hand, he was shot dead in front of his girlfriend.

Cops Deny Negligence After Killing Innocent Man in His Home

The public is told time and time again that these terrible events are "isolated" incidents, even regrettable tragedies, but that overall the police are still there to protect and serve the community.

Police Misconduct Daily Report

We are also promised that if we happen to be intentionally victimized by one of these "bad apples" who "sometimes" make it into the police ranks, that the law will stand behind us, and that abuse of the public trust will not be tolerated. Yet the reality is quite the opposite of what the propaganda leads the majority of blissfully unaware Americans to believe.

VIDEO LINK

Most Americans believe that it they could never be the victim of police violence. That so long as they don't do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.

Police In Florida Torture Tourist To Death, No One Held Accountable

VIDEO LINK

And again, they have misplaced faith that justice would be served if they did happen to be victimized by a bad cop. So let's take a look at that notion now. What happens if you try to file a complaint against a police officer?

VIDEO LINK

Also see: D.A.'s Office Complicit In Brutality Coverup

What happens if we try to take allegations of police corruption to our elected representatives?

Police-state dictatorship apparent as arrest is made in violation of Mayor's orders and First Amendment

What happens when we try to use freedom of speech, freedom of the press to bring the news of police abuse directly to the people?

Freedom of Press Now a Felony In America

Finally, if by some long-shot chance a police officer is finally made to be held accountable in a court of law, can we expect real accountability for betrayal of public trust and openly criminal acts?

In this case, a police officer faced a 35-count indictment alleging that he used cocaine, protected drug dealers, revealed details of undercover operations, and even threatened to murder a suspect being held in the department's jail in order to protect his cocaine suppliers. During the investigation the officer was suspended, but then reinstated to work another 4 months before he finally resigned, a move which guaranteed his full pension.

Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years

In this case, a State Police Captain admitted in open court that he began sexually molesting his step-daughter when she was just six years old. As part of a plea arrangement, he did not have to admit relations with two other daughters. Even with that agreement he faced 20 years in prison, but the judge suspended the sentence and ordered 2 years of supervised probation.

Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time

And finally, we can leave off here with an ironic, yet all too realistic example of the nature of police in America today.

Cop Made Chief After Negligent Homicide Conviction

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience” -Albert Camus

For more information on police abuse of authority, please visit the Police-State tab at Station.6.Underground, and CopBlock.org

This composition created in cooperation with November-Yankee and Station.6.Underground

EDIT to add more info 10/5/14:

This is the sort of accountability we can expect when police are actually guilty of horrible crimes.

Police Chief Admits to Sexually Assaulting Unconscious Woman on 911 Call, Won’t See 1 Day in Jail

Excerpt:

While on duty last November, Theriot received a call about an unresponsive woman who was passed out at a gas station. Theriot responded to the call, placed the woman in the passenger seat of his patrol car and took her to his office.

On the way to his office, Theriot stopped at a liquor store and picked up a bottle of vodka, which he intended to share with the woman. While in his car, he admitted to groping the woman and violating her while she was unconscious.

When they arrived at the police station, Theriot carried the woman into his office and tied her to a chair with a belt. He then admits to removing he clothes and forcing her to perform sexual acts while she was barely conscious. Theriot then left the woman tied to the chair in his office while he attended a meeting in another part of the building.

We also now have the story of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri which may or may not have been justified but which have caused widespread riots and demonstrations. While it appears that shooting may have been justified, this case is far less ambiguous. John Crawford III was talking in the telephone with his mother, when he was gunned down by police in an Ohio Wal-Mart store. A 911 call was made after he was seen calmly wandering around the store, holding a toy rifle he had picked up from a store shelf. Some say the shooting was justified because please didn't know if it was a "real gun" or not. That point happens to be irrelevant though, considering that Ohio is an open-carry state. Which means that citizens may freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and carry a fully loaded firearm, on open display, wherever they go.



Tweet

The Collectivist Conspiracy (VIDEO)

YouTube description:

In this exclusive 80 minute video interview, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.

Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme - collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted in to the White House.

"All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that's the only way you can hold it together," warns Griffin.

Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda. Griffin documents how the Tea Party, after its beginnings as a grass roots movement, was later hijacked by the Republicans through the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.

Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the demonization of the John Birch Society as a racist extremist group, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans.









Tweet

Newsflash! Presidents Spend Money!

In case you didn't get the memo, Presidents spend money. Recent Democrats happen to hold the record for both lowest and highest spending against GPD. So in other words, politics don't mean dick when it comes to the economy. Never has.

Tweet

Minimum Wage vs. Libertarian

I like a lot of stuff Julie does, and consider myself a libertarian as well, but I have to completely disagree with her on this issue. Her reasons for opposing a minimum wage are logically unsound, based more on Neo-Con propaganda than facts.

Rebuttal to Minimum Wage Argument Made by Julie Borowski


In her first few sentences, I do agree with Julie. I would like to know where the heck Obama came up with that figure as well. It does sound awfully arbitrary. Speech rhetoric that probably won't go anywhere anyway, but will appease the working poor for a time fooling them into believing that the Democrats are actually looking out for them. I don't trust politicians, and as much as I support an increase in minimum wage, I don't expect Obama to deliver any better than he delivered on his promise to close GITMO or to repeal so much of the tyranny imposed by the Bush administration.

There is another standard we can look at though, regarding minimum wage. Something a little more thought- out than the hollow promises of political speechwriters. Let's have a look here for a moment, at the proposal by the Minumum Wage Workers' Union of America:

Analyzing a Pracitcal Minimum Wage

On this page, we will itemize a sample budget for a single person in order to analyze what a fair standard would be for a minimum-wage worker. It is our position that a person working eight hours a day, five days a week, at any job, should be able to support themselves to a minimum basic standard of living. This practical wage is necessary in order to elevate the class of working poor to contributing members of society. Working for anything less than what is needed to subsist on independently, is nothing short of slavery.

All figures are based on national averages, for a Federal standard.


RENT ------------------------------$1000
BASIC UTILITIES --------------$200
ADVANCED UTILITIES ------$150
FOOD ------------------------------$300
NON-FOOD GROCERY -----$50
CLOTHING -----------------------$75
TRANSPORTATION ----------$500
HEALTHCARE -----------------$350
MISCELLANEOUS -----------$400
------------------------------------------------------
Average Basic Monthly Expenses  $3,025

A full-time job at 40 hours per week is 173.2 hours per month calculating 4.33 weeks in each month. To find a reasonable minimum wage, we divide the average basic monthly expenses figure, by the number of hours worked. For the average American worker to support themselves without government assistance or by borrowing beyond their means, that worker must earn...

$17.47 per hour

Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty. 

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.
At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011.  Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

Click link for full article and detailed description of how budget figures were calculated.

Wage-Slavery

Essentially, what that author is pointing out, is that anything less than a practical minimum wage is slavery. And not only slavery, but slavery subsidized by taxpayers who are next in line to become slaves themselves, in perpetual economic decline, as designed by the Federal Reserve System.

In the days of racial slavery, the slave owners were obligated to provide for the needs of their workers. To pay for the food, shelter, clothing, and even provide the basic medical care for their slaves. Contrary to some modern perceptions of those times, a slave worker was as expensive as an automobile is today and treated accordingly. Sure, there are some people who beat on their cars. But for the most part, responsible car owners make sure that their car is well kept and given proper maintenance. That was true too, in the shameful era of the slave laborer.  

Now some may see it as vulgar to compare a human being to an automobile, but this is only to highlight the depravity of what we are seeing today with the exploitation of low-wage American workers. They are treated worse than slaves, worse than automobiles, in many ways. No oil changes and running on empty, yet expected to run hotter and faster each and every day.

As if the abuse of the low-wage worker were not enough, the middle class-worker, the common taxpayer, is being forced to subsidize the labor costs of the corporations. Rather than mandating a corporation like Wal-Mart pay their own true labor costs, by paying a wage so that their employees can subsist, you, the taxpayer, are now forced to make up the difference through social welfare programs. Now you must pay for the "oil changes" on their equipment and put "gas in the tank" so to speak, with foodstamps, medical care, and so forth, to keep the corporate labor force running.

As a libertarian, I believe that providing for liberty over slavery is a noble cause, not to mention lower taxes and making companies pay their own expenses. 

But I digress. Let's dig into Julie's next point now.


"Why not 50 or 100 dollars...? (paraphrased)

Because Julie, we are trying to establish a minimum wage, not a free-for-all.

Now this cuts right to the core of the role of government. As a libertarian, I believe that the only role of government is to protect the interests of the people, individually and/or collectively, from those who would exploit our liberty to nefarious ends. Therefore, I believe it is within the purview of Constitutional governance for the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce in such a way that a worker must be paid an equality wage that will provide for their most basic living expenses as a human being, in order to prevent said workers from requiring social welfare subsidies.

In essence, if you want to do business in the United States, you must pay your workers enough so that they may afford the bare essentials without need for government assistance to merely survive.

Without such protection from our own government, there is nothing to stop exploiters from demanding that we all work harder for $2 a day. There is no liberty for a working stiff who makes less than a worker in some third-world country.

As Americans, we are supposed to be doing it better and smarter than the other guy, to be a beacon of hope, not to reduce ourselves to a point of global communism. If Libertarians, as a political party don't agree with that, then maybe I am in the wrong camp.


"Any minimum wage... will prevent some people from getting a job."

Is it your position then, Julie, that there should not be a minimum wage at all? That we should take our $2 a day and be grateful for it?

The reality is that a higher minimum wage will only marginally cut into the profits of companies, who exploit the welfare system in order to subsidize their own labor costs. As we showed above, you only get lower prices at Walmart, because you pay more in taxes to pay the food, healthcare, daycare costs, etcetera, for their workers... whether or not you even shop at Walmart.

If a company could actually afford to lay off workers, they would, will, and do, regardless of payroll obligations. Millions of people have been laid off in recent years, without any minimum wage increase. They have already been doing this to the detriment overall economy, as quality of goods and services plummet, while CEO's are steadily increasing historically unprecedented wealth. If you can't afford to pay your employees an honest day's wage for an honest day of work, then you simply cannot afford to be in business and it's time to close your doors.

If it takes 100 employees to operate your shopping center, then you can't lay off 20 of those people simply to protect your profit margin. Your business will not function properly and customers will move to your competitor, who provides better service and/or products. A company only hires as many people as they need. That is true no matter what the minimum wage is.

"Gee, I got a fat bonus, I think I will hire some people I don't need."" -said no CEO ever

In short, no, a minimum wage increase will not prevent anyone from getting a job if there is a job to be done.

 
"Let's say I'm a ... teenager."

Between the "why not $50 an hour" bit and now this teenager gambit, Julie is clearly relying on false-logic tactics of disinformation, with "straw-man/red herring" arguments.

Teenagers are not the only minimum wage employees, and only make up a small portion of that labor class today, thanks to depressed wages and skilled workers being forced into unskilled jobs.

More and more adults with families are trying to support those families with minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage standards are not there to protect some high school kid who is living at home with their parents, and who needs the money for a new set of headphones. The people who are filling these jobs today are trying to feed their own children and keep a roof over their heads. The less they are paid by the companies who are profiting from their labors, the more the taxpayers will have to contribute in order to keep these families from starving to death in the streets.


"...I want to work for $7 an hour, you want to hire me for $7 an hour..."

This is the one point in her argument that cuts to the core of libertarian principles. The free will of two people to enter into a business arrangement. In an overly simplistic interpretation, Julie sees the minimum wage mandate as infringing upon the liberty of these two persons. What she fails to acknowledge is that without a minimum wage standard in this country, companies will be infringing on the liberty of people who don't want to make that same deal, but who are then forced to by circumstances outside of their own control and the impositions of corporate greed.

No man is an island, no business arrangement exists in a vacuum. This is why we have codes of ethics and laws to protect against unfair business practices from Wall Street to your local farm stand. This is why you can't put a gun to someone's head and say, "either your brains or your signature will be on the contract." This is why you can't serve someone a plate of food that will make them sick a half-hour after they walk out of your restaurant, and then claim, "buyer beware."

If this potential employee and the employer were to enter into an arrangement for pay below the minimum wage, they would not be practicing liberty, they would be in effect conspiring to undermine the worth of other workers who were not party to this arrangement.

There will always be someone who is willing to work for less. There are people in India and China who work for pennies a day. Here in America, illegal immigration and related labor exploitation has been detrimental to our economy, thanks to the dampening effect on wages and thanks to a total lack of labor bargaining leverage by American workers. This hasn't just effected minimum wage workers either, but the entire working class across the board. The market is flooded with workers who will work under the table for less than what is mandated by labor laws, putting everyone's wages and jobs in jeopardy.

If the majority of jobs in America only paid pennies per hour, what do you think that would do to your own pay rate? Again, minimum wage standards are not there to protect some teenager who wants his first job, the standard is there to protect the labor market as a whole.


"...and maybe in a month or two would have given you a raise if you were any good."

Well, if the employer can afford to give a raise in a few months, he can afford to pay a fair wage right now! If you hire someone, at any pay rate, and they cannot perform the job, you fire them. It's as simple as that.

Besides, entry level pay rates are not a negotiation. They are a set standard regardless of your resume and skills. If your local burger joint is hiring a cashier, it's a minimum wage position, whether you are a teenager looking for an after school job, or you are a single mother who just got laid off from your job as the manager of a burger place across town that just closed down. A manager looking to fill the cashier position isn't going to pay someone with experience a few more dollars per hour to do the same job that the kid with no resume can do for less. They also are not going to give that cashier a raise, ever. Now granted, a cashier who works hard might be promoted in time to another position that pays better, if someone else gets fired or leaves, but that cashier position will always pay the same minimum wage amount.

As a side note and personal anecdote, I used to work in a contract position with a state government. When the contract was originally signed, it called for the employees to be paid a rate that was double the minimum wage at that time. If the minimum wage were to go up under this Obama plan, it would be the first raise for those employees in 20 years.


"...fire employees, cut their hours..."

False. An employer cannot cut the number of man-hours required to perform a task. It's as simple as that. Also, employers do not keep people on the payroll as a matter of charity. If they didn't need that employee, they would have already fired them, regardless of what they were being paid. Even if you are paying a person $2 an hour, if you don't need that person there, it's a waste of money to keep them there.


"...and raise their hiring standards..."

To what? College educated burger flippers? The market is already flooded with unemployed and underemployed skilled workers. The employers don't have to raise their hiring standards, the market has done that for them already. In the past several years, studies have shown that half of college graduates are either unemployed, or are working minimum wage jobs unrelated to their field of study.

So if a raised hiring standard really is of relevance here, then clearly the employers need to start paying a lot more for these college-educated grocery baggers.


Market-liquidity

Wikipedia explains this principle stating...

"In business, economics or investment, market liquidity is an asset's ability to be sold without causing a significant movement in the price and with minimum loss of value."

This is a concept that seems to be foreign to people like Julie and opponents of a minimum wage increase. Low-wage workers are more likely than any other class of worker to spend what they earn. If you pay them more, they will spend more, creating economic stimulus.

This was the principle and reasoning behind former President Bush's economic stimulus plan, when he mailed everyone a $300 check.

Why is the economy in such dire straits right now? Because employers are forced to pay too much for unskilled and entry-level workers? No, it's because no one is buying anything. How do you get people to start buying things again? Make sure they have the money to go buy things, while instilling consumer confidence in the markets.

Increasing the minimum wage will create market liquidity through increased spending. More spending means greater demand  for goods and services to be delivered. Greater demand means more jobs for people who are out of work right now, to deliver more goods and services. More goods and services being delivered, means lower per-unit cost for all of the things we spend money on. More people with jobs, cheaper goods and services, means even more spending, creating economic vitality and prosperity for all.






Tweet

VP Joe Biden Declares 'I Am a Zionist'

This interview was actually filmed when the Vice-President was still a Senator, but it makes his statement no less illegal and should have certainly disqualified him from the vice-Presidency.

For all the talk of Obama being a closet Muslim, it's quite interesting that this open admission gets no airplay.




While it would actually be completely legal for President Obama to declare himself a Muslim, it would be illegal for him to declare that he was a jihadist for some Muslim theocracy such as Iran. This is essentially what Biden has said, but on behalf of a the Jewish state rather than a Muslim one.

Now his statement should not be confused with having affection for Jewish people, and pointing out this treasonous statement should not be misinterpreted as anti-Semitic. This is not so much a matter of religion as it is political allegiance. There are many Jews who are not Zionists.

Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

Google query 'anti zionist jews'


What Biden has done here is openly declared himself a loyal agent of a foreign national doctrine. A doctrine which many people see as racist, imperial, and genocidal. Whether Zionism is good, bad, or otherwise is actually irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, but the fact remains that Biden has openly declared himself to be a foreign agent. And he is our VP now.


Tweet






 

Guns n' Poseur: Crime Stats by Reality Check (VIDEO)

Tweet

2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and the Freedom of Hypocrisy

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."-Thomas Paine

If it's one thing I cannot abide, it is hypocrisy. We see a lot of it in America though, particularly in politics. From top political leaders, to beltway pundits and radio jockeys, right on down to your dear old Uncle Frank. People claiming to hold certain values as inviolable, yet who will turn right around and toss those values on the garbage-heap when it suits an agenda. And more often than not, it is an agenda that the supporters themselves cannot really explain when pressed. They squirm and get angry when confronted with logical debate, but never reverse themselves even when they are exposed as total hypocrites.

It is truly frightening to see these partisan sheeple get that glazed look over their eyes as they begin to chant their party's rhetoric, when you expose the lie for which they stand. Even when you prove to them that they are flat out wrong, they still will not give up that position. No matter what evidence you provide, no matter what logical flaw in their argument you expose. Why? Are Americans truly so indoctrinated and brainwashed that they can no longer think for themselves? Right or wrong no longer applies, red or blue is all that matters. Elections are more like football games today, the issues mere cheerleaders on the sidelines or ignored altogether, while spin, rhetoric, media manipulation and big dollars have become the game. Or worse, the real game all happens now behind the scenes, in secret meetings, where Presidents and party leaders are SE-lected long before they are e-lected, while Americans are fed a steady does of politi-tainment propping up an illusion of choice.



As a Constitutionalist, and a centrist libertarian, I don't have much use for political rhetoric. I am no partisan. I stand by my beliefs, based on facts and sound logic, rather than political affiliations and propaganda. On some issues I may be accused of being a "liberal Commie" while on other issues I get flamed and labeled a "right-wing Fascist." So many folks simply cannot fathom how I might agree with a Democrat on one issue while agreeing with a Republican on another. Always though, the Constitution is there as a basis for all of my values as an American.

So let's take a closer look at two topics which have been hot-button issues in the past year or so. Specifically, the 2nd and 4th Amendments of the Constitution.

With the debate still raging regarding our Right to Bear Arms, in the wake of several deadly mass-shootings, Republicans and the political Right have taken up the mantle of a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. While liberals have made an open and direct assault against the Second Amendment, conservatives have fired back with demands for even less gun regulations.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment, Constitution of the United States

On this issue, I believe in an unconditional right of every citizen to keep and use any man-portable small-arm that is manufactured. Any weapon which might be carried by an infantry soldier, should also be a weapon that can be owned and carried by a citizen. Simple as that, end of story.

Yes, that includes pistols, rifles, assault rifles, high capacity magazines for small arms, knives, swords, spears, hand-grenades, and even rocket launchers. The only restrictions I might place on owning any of these weapons would go along the lines of proficiency, and safe storage. In other words, I would agree to a permit requirement to show that you know how to use something like a grenade launcher, or even a semi-auto pistol as examples, before you can own one. I might also agree to certain permitting requirements for the safe keeping of weapons. That in order to purchase a pistol you also have to purchase a gun lock for it, an assault rifle, a proper gun safe, a truckload of hand grenades, a proper explosive retardant bunker.

Short of that, I really don't see any reason why a person who might just as easily use and have access to these weapons while in military service, should not also be allowed to own these weapons themselves personally. Soldiers are no more "trustworthy" than you or I. In fact, history shows that soldiers are just as often the oppressors of the people, as they are the liberators of the oppressed. History also shows that a people who can resist by force, may defeat a would-be oppressor. The very basis of the Second Amendment was never to protect your right to hunt, or to protect your home from burglars. It was, and always has been to protect you from your own government. 

Chuck Schumer

Democrats and the liberal-Left have exposed their own hypocrisy on this "gun-control" issue. Many of the top political leaders who are pushing for the disarmament of citizens are in fact gun-owners themselves. For politicians who pride themselves on being more "connected" to the people, less aloof, they sure have missed the mark here. It seems clear they fancy themselves, "special" and that they should enjoy special privileges while the "peasants" are unworthy of our Right to Bear Arms. Not to mention the fact that the politicians also enjoy the benefit of taxpayer funded armed guards at their disposal, wherever they go.

A liberal media outlet has suddenly turned to hiring private guards armed with machine guns, after shooting themselves in the foot so to speak, in a shameful ploy to sell newspapers by printing the names and addresses of legally permitted gun-owners in New York State. Thus, in just a few quick examples, we see the hypocrisy of the anti-gun-liberals in this country.

Republican-conservatives are often thought of as, and even fancy themselves as, the protectors of the Constitution. The good-sense traditionalists who stand as the rock which progressives must slowly chisel away at in order to advance their leftist agenda. Sadly though, this is not really the truth, and the political Right are at least as much the hypocrites that the Left are. So while I stand with the conservatives on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, I suddenly find myself at odds with my Right-wing friends when it comes to the Fourth Amendment.

You see, as I already stated, I am a Constitutionalist. A strict and true Constitutionalist who will not be swayed by social agendas, party politics and propaganda. Even if it means I must suffer the betrayal of my Right-wing friends who stood with me to defend the Second Amendment, I will remain true to the Constitution, and stay the course to defend the Fourth Amendment as well.

"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." -4th Amendment, Constitution of the United States

One cannot pick and choose which rights and which portions of the Constitution they will support at any given moment, simply to support one's own personal political agenda or biased beliefs. You either believe in the Constitution, or you don't. Even when it comes to seemingly more difficult interpretations, there really isn't as much ambiguity as we are taught to think. Not so much room for interpretation, as shady political leaders and the Supreme Court have led us to believe.

In the 2nd Amendment we are left with "...shall not be infringed" being interpreted as "so long as you abide by police-state codes dictating who can carry what where and when." The 4th Amendment's "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" has now been distorted to mean that so-called "probable cause" is the warrant, and that the actual warrant, often with little or no basis, is a mere afterthought or simply does not exist at all. The consequences have been catastrophic for freedom-loving people, as the 4th Amendment is torn asunder in the guise of national security, crime fighting, public safety...

Submit to Sexual Degradation at the Hands of Overlords

Police State of Mind

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear?

After two tours in Iraq, Marine murdered at home by SWAT in front of family

Indiana Governor Signs Law Allowing Residents to Resist Illegal Police Searches

Checkpoint Gringo

Papers Please


... and of course, in the name of attacking the poor. Brazen class warfare has begun, where poor folks are to be openly denied liberty.

While many of my conservative friends may be open to discussion on some issues, there are two which I find they support universally, and without discussion. The first is, of course, the right to bear arms. The second, in completely hypocritical fashion, is drug testing of welfare recipients.

In one breath they support the Constitution unconditionally, in the next, they support the destruction of the Constitution, without question, based entirely on an irrational bias against the poor. This, I cannot abide. I am no hypocrite. And so, just as I stand to support the 2nd Amendment, I will also stand to defend the 4th Amendment.

For the government to demand a search of your bodily fluids, it is far more personal and serious than a search of even your home or your papers. It is also a direct violation of the 4th Amendment, when there is no warrant or reasonable suspicion that the person is guilty of any crime.

One might argue that welfare is socialism, that people on welfare abuse the system, that there are millions of jobs out there waiting for each and every person on welfare if they would just get off their lazy asses. One might even argue that drug abuse is the whole reason we have a welfare class in the first place, that everyone on welfare are drug addicted scum. Even if all the stereotypes were true, it still would not change the fact mandatory drug testing is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Why Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients is a Bad Idea

Welfare Drug Testing, Give Me One Good Reason

It makes no difference if you choose to submit to a drug test at work. Welfare is not a job for one thing, it is a government service. So in that sense, saying that people on welfare should be drug tested is like saying that anyone who calls for a fire engine should be drug tested. Or that anyone with municipal garbage collection is also subject to random drug screenings. So you really can't compare the two. Secondly, just because you choose to work for some fascist company who demeans you and demands that you piss in a cup every month, doesn't mean that you can force your choice on other people. That twisted logic would be the same as saying that just because my job requires $500 in state licensing fees each year, that everyone should be forced to pay or the same license whether they need it or not.

No matter what reason you can come up with for drug testing, not one supersedes the Constitution. So, if you support the Second Amendment, while at the same time supporting drug testing on welfare recipients, you are a hypocrite, a tyrant, and a danger to Constitutional liberty.

For every reason that you can come up with why the 4th Amendment should not apply to the poor, those same excuses could be made to take away your guns, not to mention your own 4th Amendment rights. Because, make no mistake, once they start drug testing on welfare unchallenged, and the last vestiges of the 4th Amendment are swept aside, the floodgates will be opened to mandatory drug testing and then even DNA sampling of every last person in this country. 

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -Thomas Paine

 
People on welfare should give up their 4th Amendment rights and submit to a drug test, because they might be drug addicts. 

Gun owners should give up their 2nd Amendment rights because they might use a gun to go out and kill a lot of innocent people.

If I am going to be drug tested at work, people on welfare need to be drug tested too. 

If I am not going to carry a gun, you can't either.

People on welfare are druggies.

Gun-owners are violent people.

People on welfare should just go out and get a job. 

People should just call the police if they need help.

People on welfare abuse the system.

People who own guns put us all in danger. 

Welfare drug testing will force people to stop using drugs.

Banning guns will stop people from killing eachother.

There are ways to get help other than welfare.

There are better alternatives than owning a gun.

I was an addict, I never asked for help.

I have been robbed before, I didn't nee a gun.

People should be forced to go to rehab if they are on drugs. 

Gun owners should have to undergo extensive psych exams. 


If you want welfare, prove you are clean.

Prove that you need a gun.



Etcetera. I will add more one-liners there as I see them come up in discussions.

"All these things have followed from the want of a constitution; for it is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~Thomas Paine

Tweet