Remember: You Red bastards asked for this – not us.
All we wanted was to be left alone, to live our lives without your meddling. We’ve tolerated you long enough. We’ve tolerated your icons long enough. If you wish to leave, now is the time.
Once we begin, we will not stop until you are gone. We intend to live our lives at Liberty. We mean that our children and grandchildren will do the same, free of your tyrannies.
You should have left us alone.
Washington (CNN) They’re carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.
A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists, and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.
Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.
The DHS report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks around the U.S. since 2010…. blah blah blah
There were 24 attacks by the dangerous right-wingers in the US in the last 4 years? There were 24 violent attacks on black folks by other black folks in Camden NJ last fricken week!
Go here for the rest of the nauseating, fascistic fear-mongering, thought control and propaganda if you so choose. I myself will be cleaning guns and shopping for lengths of gas pipe.
I just “discovered” Kris Anne Hall & Liberty First. You MUST GO HERE and listen to what this brilliant woman has to say regarding history, liberty and government.
By John W. Whitehead , June 23, 2014
“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.
A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.
Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.
Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security. In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”—they are not accountable for their actions—in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.
Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them. Continue reading
…. Now, let’s go through and list the true premises vis-a-vis the Obama regime that NY Post still refuses to acknowledge:
A.) The Obama regime is the explicit, sworn enemy of the former United States and is at war with it.
B.) The Obama regime is explicitly allied with islam as both political systems seek to create a super-rich tyrannical oligarchy over a massive, destitute underclass.
C.) The Libyan incursion and establishment of a beachhead and depot there in March of ARSH 2011 was done specifically to arm muslims throughout Africa and Asia, and eventually Europe, who would overthrow secular governments and advance the reforming of the Caliphate, as well as fight against and kill US military. The Taliban being armed with these munitions isn’t a “backfire” or a bug, it’s a feature and the original goal.
D.) The Obama regime is happy to see highly-skilled elite forces, such as SEALS, Rangers and Marines killed because they know and fear that such men MAY ultimately be counter-revolutionary and/or junta risks. Remember the “SEAL Team 6″ massacre of 30 of the US’s top fighting men, packed, against protocol, into a mere National Guard cargo Chinook, and delivered on a platter for the kill by the Taliban, five months after the Libyan weapons depot was established.
E.) The Obama regime looks forward to the inevitable use of stingers and MANPADS against passenger jets – because that’s precisely what MANPADs are designed for – and will use the terror and “crisis” to expand its power.
F.) The Obama regime never had any expectation that the released Taliban 5 from Gitmo would do anything but be immediately freed to return to the front. They were released because the Obama regime is allied with and deeply sympathetic to the musloid political system.
I think that probably covers the above NY Post piece. Only when you operate under the previous TRUE premises can TRUE conclusions be reached. If you start with a false premise, the truth table is utterly corrupted, and thus all output flowing from said truth table will be false. If you take the latest Fields Medal-winning mathematical dissertation and begin with the premise that 0=1, you can still run all of the equations… it’s just that the results will be utter, complete gibberish. And if you try to use that gibberish in an applied field, like physics, your structure will collapse and everyone in it will die, because REALITY ALWAYS WINS.