🔥 | Latest

9/11, America, and Bad: CAN Following @CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking place in the United States because it "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it /2uhH6uB 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes Brotha EB @BlakeDontCrack Following George Bush literally created ICE CNN@CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration debate taking place in the United States because it undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018 391 Retweets 903 Likes c-bassmeow: n0rdicalien: c-bassmeow: sodomymcscurvylegs: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too. Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/ This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.” nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump.  Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously.  Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act.  He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act.  The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so.  so no…. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded.  Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.   Do not rehabilitate this man. Please.  i heard ICE also prevents child/human trafficking. Is that true? Even if it does that’s a smokescreen to distract us from how evil it is. The US military sometimes does “good” by giving aide to famished countries yet often it’s the one creating the famines lol We can have a non militarized agency that deals with human trafficking without ripping children from their families and without being hostile to brown immigrants who are often fleeing extreme violence and penury some caused by the US. Also for those who are concerned about border security…… we had border security before ICE was invented. ICE is not needed at all. Plus the border security BS is overrated since immigrants commit less crimes than non immigrants and if we legalize drugs and regulated them and taxed them gang violence and Mafia like activity that occurs on the border will cease to exist. We are the cause of a lot of this. We create a problem and then make it worse by our militarized non-solutions. Lastly, if my sources are correct ICE has lost many children who have possibly been lost to human traffickers so …. some job they’re doing.
9/11, America, and Bad: CAN
 Following
 @CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is
 "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking
 place in the United States because it
 "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it
 /2uhH6uB
 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018
 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
c-bassmeow:

n0rdicalien:

c-bassmeow:
sodomymcscurvylegs:

whyyoustabbedme:

whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/

This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.”

nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump. 
Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously. 
Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act. 
He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act. 
The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so. 
so no…. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded. 

Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.  

Do not rehabilitate this man. Please. 

i heard ICE also prevents child/human trafficking. Is that true?

Even if it does that’s a smokescreen to distract us from how evil it is. The US military sometimes does “good” by giving aide to famished countries yet often it’s the one creating the famines lol We can have a non militarized agency that deals with human trafficking without ripping children from their families and without being hostile to brown immigrants who are often fleeing extreme violence and penury some caused by the US. Also for those who are concerned about border security…… we had border security before ICE was invented. ICE is not needed at all. Plus the border security BS is overrated since immigrants commit less crimes than non immigrants and if we legalize drugs and regulated them and taxed them gang violence and Mafia like activity that occurs on the border will cease to exist. We are the cause of a lot of this. We create a problem and then make it worse by our militarized non-solutions. Lastly, if my sources are correct ICE has lost many children who have possibly been lost to human traffickers so …. some job they’re doing.

c-bassmeow: n0rdicalien: c-bassmeow: sodomymcscurvylegs: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civili...

Amber Rose, Best Friend, and Bones: tumblr nly-johnny-dep # Believe!im 3. The op-ed's clear implication that Mr. Depp is a domestic abuser is categorically and demonstrably false. Mr. Depp never abused Ms. Heard. Her allegations against him were false when they were made in 2016. They were part of an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity for Ms. Heard and advance her career. Ms. Heard's false allegations against Mr. Depp have benconclusivlrfed by two pndng polie offices, a litany of neutral third-party witnesses, and 87 newly obtained surveillance camera videos. With a prior arrest for violent domestic abuse and having confessed under oath to a series of violent attacks on Mr. Depp, Ms. Heard is not a victim of domestic abuse; she is a perpetrator. Ms. Heard violently abused Mr. Depp, just as she was caught and arrested for violently abusing her former domestic artner. In one particularly gruesome episode that occurred only one month into their marriage, Ms. Heard shattered the bones in the tip of Mr. Depp's right middle finger, almost completely cutting it off. Ms. Heard threw a glass vodka bottle at Mr. Depp-one of many projectiles that she launched at him in this and other instances. The bottle shattered as it came into contact with Mr. Depp's hand, and the broken glass and impact severed and shattered Mr. Depp's finger. Mr. Depp's finger had to be surgically reattached. Ms. Heard then disseminated false accounts of this incident, casting Mr. Depp as the perpetrator of his own injury odinoco: only-johnny-depp: “The thing that hurt me is being presented as something that you’re really as far away from as you could possibly get, you know?” – Johnny Depp for the British GQ, October/2018 I’m sorry for the long post, but I had to say something….On the last 24 hours, Johnny has been in the news again, but now showing more proofs that SHE, Amber, is the who committed acts of domestic violence towards him. For me (and I think ALL of his fans) was – and still is – disgusting to read all the things that Johnny suffered… It’s beyond shocking!    For the damage to his career, Johnny is suing Amber in $50 million for her “false allegations” against him: “an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity” for her to “advance her career”, which made her a darling of the #MeToo movement, made her the first actress named a “Human Rights Champion of the United Nations Human Rights Office”, also was appointed “ambassador on women’s rights” at the American Civil Liberties Union, hired by L'Oreal Paris as its “global spokesperson and some people also believes that all of it opened the doors to her starring in “Aquaman”. While she was enjoying the attention, Johnny was, and still suffers consequences in his career, such as boycotts that some “haters” still makes. The whole new evidences are a rollercoaster of shocking things: The “eonline” revealed that he was dropped from his role on “Pirates of the Caribbean” days after she published her piece in the Washington Post in 2018.  The numbers of proofs against Amber, rose so much that from the at least 29 evidences, some months ago, now has at least 87 newly evidences. This numbers are just from surveillance camera videos. An employee of the building reviewed building surveillance videos three days after the alleged incident where Amber claimed that Johnny attacked her, and “testified under oath that she saw Whitney Heard pretend to punch her sister in the face. Then Ms. Heard, Ms. Pennington (Heard’s best friend), and Whitney Heard all laughed.” I think the biggest new lie that broke my heart was the “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales ” incident: If you can’t remember, back to 2015, everybody was caught up by surprise when Johnny had to head back to USA from Australia to make a surgery in his finger, caused (at that time) for “unknown reasons.” Some time before, Amber claiming that he “he was the perpetrator of his own injury” because he punched a wall and throw a glass during a quarrel. Now was revealed that SHE WAS THE ONE WHO F*CKING THREW A BOTTLE OF VODKA AT HIM!!! Due to the impact, the bottle shattered when he made contact with his hand, cutting his finger almost to the bone, which had to be surgically reattached, and delaying the filming of POTC in a month. At that time, she claimed that   Was revealed that Johnny has proofs that Amber was “spending some questionable time” with Tesla founder Elon Musk during their short marriage. While Johnny was working, he also claims Musk was given access to his home to spend the night with Heard on the same night she “presented her battered face to the public.”  Amber keep giving the excuse of “confidentiality restrictions”, due to a divorce agreement in August 2016 “which prevent her from assisting the defendants with evidence to support their case”, but, the British judge, Mr. Justice Nicklin, announced: “I am not satisfied on the current evidence that Ms. Heard’s concerns about the restrictions that the divorce agreement imposes on her are well-founded.” Mr Justice Nicklin said that Johnny had stated clearly in his evidence to the court that he expects Heard give evidence in the proceedings, and “he will not attempt to prevent that” and added “The fact that Ms Heard presently thinks that there is some impediment to her giving evidence for the defendants is nothing to do with Mr Depp. Even if she were right, there would appear to be a number of ways of resolving the issue that have not yet been explored adequately or at all.”Now tell me: How can Amber claims to be a victim if EVERYTHING goes against her and she didn’t even is defending herself? Her lawyer, Eric M. George, called Johnny’s lawsuit “frivolous” and accused him of being “hell-bent on achieving self-destruction,” and said: “This frivolous action is just the latest of Johnny Depp’s repeated efforts to silence Amber Heard. She will not be silenced.” But guess what! He didn’t even saw the papers! He only saw parts of the lawsuit release by media! (what a joke!) Until now she said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but CONFESSED UNDER OATH to a series of violent attacks TOWARDS Johnny!!!Guys, I’m so sorry for a long post, but I’m still astonished after all of it. Again,  It’s not hard to understand what’s going on. It’s not hard to understand who is the abuser and the one trying to destroy a life. It’s not hard to choose the right side. Johnny only wants to stop all these false and defamatory publications and live his life. He just want to prove the truth, and has no fear of her “evidences”.Another proof we cannot forget of how Johnny is innocent, are his most recent movies. If Johnny had done what Amber says, do you believe that all the actors and directors who had work with Johnny since 2016, would still collaborate with him? Friendship is broken when a lie is told, so do you believe that his friends would still being his friends if it was true? That the Hollywood Vampires and his personal crew would still on his side? Don’t you ever thought how many times Johnny had to prove them that he is innocent, and how hard is he working to show the truth to the world? It’s sad that even after all of it, people still don’t believe him.If you read until here, I highly thank you, and I’d like you all to share your thoughts on your social media too. Show your support to Johnny!Please, for more information read these articles: E NEWS: Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Lawsuit Against Amber Heard BRITISH: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/johnny-depp-interview-2018 PRESS GAZETTE: Sun fails in bid to halt Johnny Depp libel action over ‘wife-beater’ claim BLAST: Johnny Depp Claims Amber Heard Started Improper ‘Relationship’ With Elon Musk 1-Month After Marriage BLAST: Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Calls Her Abuse Claims an ‘Elaborate Hoax’ ET Canada:  Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Actress’ Attorney Responds We Are Always With You Johnny! Oh look, the person who made a bunch of claims with little to no proof has been ousted as a liar What a FUCKING SHOCK, AIN’T THAT RIGHT?
Amber Rose, Best Friend, and Bones: tumblr
 nly-johnny-dep
 # Believe!im

 3. The op-ed's clear implication that Mr. Depp is a domestic abuser is categorically
 and demonstrably false. Mr. Depp never abused Ms. Heard. Her allegations against him were
 false when they were made in 2016. They were part of an elaborate hoax to generate positive
 publicity for Ms. Heard and advance her career. Ms. Heard's false allegations against Mr. Depp
 have benconclusivlrfed by two pndng polie offices, a litany of neutral
 third-party witnesses, and 87 newly obtained surveillance camera videos. With a prior arrest for
 violent domestic abuse and having confessed under oath to a series of violent attacks on Mr.
 Depp, Ms. Heard is not a victim of domestic abuse; she is a perpetrator. Ms. Heard violently
 abused Mr. Depp, just as she was caught and arrested for violently abusing her former domestic
 artner.

 In one particularly gruesome episode that occurred only one month into their
 marriage, Ms. Heard shattered the bones in the tip of Mr. Depp's right middle finger, almost
 completely cutting it off. Ms. Heard threw a glass vodka bottle at Mr. Depp-one of many
 projectiles that she launched at him in this and other instances. The bottle shattered as it came
 into contact with Mr. Depp's hand, and the broken glass and impact severed and shattered Mr.
 Depp's finger. Mr. Depp's finger had to be surgically reattached. Ms. Heard then disseminated
 false accounts of this incident, casting Mr. Depp as the perpetrator of his own injury
odinoco:

only-johnny-depp:

“The thing
that hurt me is being presented as something that you’re really as far away
from as you could possibly get, you know?” – Johnny Depp for the British GQ, October/2018
I’m sorry for the long post, but I had to say something….On the last 24 hours, Johnny has been in the news
again, but now showing more proofs that SHE, Amber, is the who committed acts
of domestic violence towards him. For me (and I think ALL of his fans) was –
and still is – disgusting to read all the things that Johnny suffered… It’s beyond
shocking!   
For the damage
to his career, Johnny is suing Amber in $50 million for her “false allegations”
against him: “an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity” for her to
“advance her career”, which made her a darling of the #MeToo movement, made
her the first actress named a “Human Rights Champion of the United Nations
Human Rights Office”, also was appointed “ambassador on women’s rights” at the
American Civil Liberties Union, hired by L'Oreal Paris as its “global
spokesperson and some people also believes that all of it opened the doors to her starring in “Aquaman”. While she was enjoying the attention, Johnny was, and still suffers consequences
in his career, such as boycotts that some “haters” still makes. The whole new evidences are a rollercoaster of shocking things:

 

The “eonline”
revealed that he was dropped from his role on “Pirates of the Caribbean” days
after she published her piece in the Washington Post in 2018.  

The
numbers of proofs against Amber, rose so much that from the at least 29
evidences, some months ago, now has at least 87 newly evidences. This numbers are just from surveillance camera videos.  

An employee of the building reviewed building surveillance videos three days after
the alleged incident where Amber claimed that Johnny attacked her, and “testified under oath that she saw Whitney Heard pretend to punch her sister in
the face. Then Ms. Heard, Ms. Pennington (Heard’s best friend), and Whitney
Heard all laughed.” 

I think
the biggest new lie that broke my heart was the “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

”
incident: If you can’t remember, back to 2015, everybody was caught up by surprise
when Johnny had to head back to USA from Australia to make a surgery in his
finger, caused (at that time) for “unknown reasons.” Some time before, Amber


claiming that he 

“he was the perpetrator of his own injury” because he punched a wall and throw a glass during a quarrel. Now was revealed that SHE WAS THE ONE WHO F*CKING THREW A BOTTLE OF VODKA AT
HIM!!! Due to the
impact, the bottle shattered when he made contact with his hand, cutting his
finger almost to the bone, which had to be surgically reattached, and delaying the filming of POTC in a month. At that time, she claimed that  


 

Was revealed that Johnny has proofs that Amber was “spending some questionable time” with Tesla
founder Elon Musk during their short marriage. While Johnny
was working, he also claims Musk was given access to his home to spend the night with Heard on the same night she “presented her battered face to the public.” 
 Amber keep
giving the excuse of “confidentiality restrictions”, due to a divorce agreement
in August 2016 “which prevent her from assisting the defendants with evidence
to support their case”, but, the British judge, Mr. Justice Nicklin, announced:
“I am not satisfied on the current evidence that Ms. Heard’s concerns about the
restrictions that the divorce agreement imposes on her are well-founded.” Mr Justice
Nicklin said that Johnny had stated
clearly in his evidence to the court that he expects Heard give evidence in the
proceedings, and “he will not attempt to prevent that” and added “The fact that
Ms Heard presently thinks that there is some impediment to her giving evidence
for the defendants is nothing to do with Mr Depp. Even if she were right, there
would appear to be a number of ways of resolving the issue that have not yet
been explored adequately or at all.”Now tell
me: How can Amber claims to be a victim if EVERYTHING goes against her and she
didn’t even is defending herself? Her lawyer, Eric M. George, called Johnny’s lawsuit
“frivolous” and accused him of being “hell-bent on achieving self-destruction,”
and said: “This frivolous action is just the latest of Johnny Depp’s repeated efforts
to silence Amber Heard. She will not be silenced.” But guess what! He didn’t
even saw the papers! He only saw parts of the lawsuit release by media! (what a
joke!) Until now she said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but CONFESSED UNDER OATH to a
series of violent attacks TOWARDS Johnny!!!Guys, I’m so sorry for a long post, but I’m still astonished after all of it. Again, 

It’s not hard to understand what’s going on. It’s not hard to understand who is the abuser and the one trying to destroy a life. It’s not hard to choose the right side.


Johnny only wants to stop all these false and defamatory publications and live his life.
He just want to prove the truth, and has no
fear of her “evidences”.Another proof we cannot forget of how Johnny is innocent, are his most recent movies. If Johnny had done what Amber says, do you believe that all the actors and directors who had work with Johnny since 2016, would still collaborate with him? Friendship is broken when a lie is told, so do you believe that his friends would still being his friends if it was true? That the Hollywood Vampires and his personal crew would still on his side? Don’t you ever thought how many times Johnny had to prove them that he is innocent, and how hard is he working to show the truth to the world?
It’s sad that even after all of it,
people still don’t believe him.If you read until here, I highly thank you, and I’d like you all to share your thoughts on your social media too. Show your support to Johnny!Please, for more information read these articles: E NEWS: 

Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Lawsuit Against Amber Heard



 

BRITISH: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/johnny-depp-interview-2018

 

PRESS
GAZETTE: 

Sun fails in bid to halt Johnny Depp libel action over ‘wife-beater’ claim




 

BLAST: 

Johnny Depp Claims Amber Heard Started Improper ‘Relationship’ With Elon Musk 1-Month After Marriage




 

BLAST: 

Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Calls Her Abuse Claims an ‘Elaborate Hoax’




 

ET Canada: 

Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Actress’ Attorney Responds

We Are Always With You Johnny!


Oh look, the person who made a bunch of claims with little to no proof has been ousted as a liar
What a FUCKING SHOCK, AIN’T THAT RIGHT?

odinoco: only-johnny-depp: “The thing that hurt me is being presented as something that you’re really as far away from as you could possib...

Children, Club, and Dad: Cheko reacted quickly when he saw his owner get threatend with a knife in a domestic dispute, he dived in front of his mom to protect her. Here he is shown recovering from being stabbed 13 times. Four intruders, one armed with a shotgun broke into a family home where the father was threatened to open the family safe, when the dad of 3 didn't comply the indruder got ready to open fire where Lefty the pit bull jumped at him blocking the shot from his daddy and got a bullet wound to his shoulder. The intruder was injured by the dog and they all quickly fled from the scene. Baby, a 10 year old pit bull woke up her family in the middle of the night to alert them of a blazing fire that had broken out. Managing to avoid the vicious flames, one by one she woke up each family member and led them to safty. After putting her humans out of danger, she then ran back into the burning house to save the family's other five dogs, one of which was blind and too scared to go with her so she pulled the dog out by the scruff of the neck. The home was completely distroyed but thanks to Baby, no-one had a single burn. Cara was walking her dog, Creature one night and couldn't help but notice he had a lot of interest in a certain bush. Shrugging it of as he's just seen a cat, Creature carried on to pull and bark to alert his owner that something wasn't quite right. Cara finally went with her companions instinct and decided to check it out, where she found an elderly woman in her PJs on the ground, shivering from the cold. Who she found was Carmen Mitchell, 89, suffers from Alzheimer's and had wandered from her home. When Bella the pit bull mix was seen running into traffic and barking at pedestrians, she was thought to be just another stray. Teri was one of those pedestrians and decided the follow the mixed breed. Bella lead Teri to her home, where her wheelchair-bound owner was found on the floor with stab wounds in his neck while clinging to life. Her owner luckily survived and says that he owes his life to Bella for running to get help. I made this comp because the media only concerntrates on the badly-owned pit bulls then blame their breed for it for their actions. There's hundreds of stories about heroic pit bulls that saidly never make it to mainstream media as people seem to love an outrage. If this gets a good reaction then i'll put more up but i don't want to bore anyone for now. I have a pit bull who i took from a dog fighter when he was a puppy, even though he's been 'bred to fight' i've raised him right and in the 11 years of having him he's never hurt anyone and has given me nothing but happiness (and maybe a couple of chewed up shoes) Thanks for reading guys, i hope the world is a little more open- minded on this misunderstood yet lovable breed. malicemanaged: almostrose: helainetieu: I hope everyone reblogs this. For most of the 114 years since the American pitbull terrier was first recognized by the United Kennel Club, the breed was rightly seen as the perfect “nanny dog” for children because of its friendly nature, loyalty and stability. [x] Pit bulls have always been protectors. With good owners and proper care, they still are. Chako*, Lefty, Baby, Creature, and Bela are proof of that. Pitbulls are great dogs and anyone who says otherwise can fucking fight me
Children, Club, and Dad: Cheko reacted quickly when he saw his
 owner get threatend with a knife in a
 domestic dispute, he dived in front of his
 mom to protect her. Here he is shown
 recovering from being stabbed 13 times.
 Four intruders, one armed with a
 shotgun broke into a family home
 where the father was threatened to
 open the family safe, when the dad of
 3 didn't comply the indruder got
 ready to open fire where Lefty the pit
 bull jumped at him blocking the shot
 from his daddy and got a bullet wound
 to his shoulder. The intruder was injured
 by the dog and they all quickly fled from
 the scene.

 Baby, a 10 year old pit bull woke up her
 family in the middle of the night to alert
 them of a blazing fire that had broken
 out. Managing to avoid the vicious
 flames, one by one she woke up each
 family member and led them to safty.
 After putting her humans out of
 danger, she then ran back into the
 burning house to save the family's
 other five dogs, one of which was blind
 and too scared to go with her so she
 pulled the dog out by the scruff of the
 neck. The home was completely
 distroyed but thanks to Baby, no-one
 had a single burn.
 Cara was walking her dog, Creature one
 night and couldn't help but notice he
 had a lot of interest in a certain bush.
 Shrugging it of as he's just seen a cat,
 Creature carried on to pull and bark to
 alert his owner that something wasn't
 quite right. Cara finally went with her
 companions instinct and decided to
 check it out, where she found an
 elderly woman in her PJs on the
 ground, shivering from the cold. Who
 she found was Carmen Mitchell, 89,
 suffers from Alzheimer's and had
 wandered from her home.

 When Bella the pit bull mix was seen
 running into traffic and barking at
 pedestrians, she was thought to be just
 another stray. Teri was one of those
 pedestrians and decided the follow the
 mixed breed. Bella lead Teri to her
 home, where her wheelchair-bound
 owner was found on the floor with
 stab wounds in his neck while clinging
 to life. Her owner luckily survived and
 says that he owes his life to Bella for
 running to get help.
 I made this comp because the media only
 concerntrates on the badly-owned pit
 bulls then blame their breed for it for
 their actions. There's hundreds of stories
 about heroic pit bulls that saidly never
 make it to mainstream media as people
 seem to love an outrage. If this gets a
 good reaction then i'll put more up but i
 don't want to bore anyone for now.
 I have a pit bull who i took from a dog
 fighter when he was a puppy, even
 though he's been 'bred to fight' i've
 raised him right and in the 11 years of
 having him he's never hurt anyone and
 has given me nothing but happiness (and
 maybe a couple of chewed up shoes)
 Thanks for reading guys, i hope
 the world is a little more open-
 minded on this misunderstood
 yet lovable breed.
malicemanaged:
almostrose:

helainetieu:

I hope everyone reblogs this.


For most of the 114 years since the American pitbull terrier was first recognized by the United Kennel Club, the breed was rightly seen as the perfect “nanny dog” for children because of its friendly nature, loyalty and stability. [x]
Pit bulls have always been protectors. With good owners and proper care, they still are. Chako*, Lefty, Baby, Creature, and Bela are proof of that.


Pitbulls are great dogs and anyone who says otherwise can fucking fight me

malicemanaged: almostrose: helainetieu: I hope everyone reblogs this. For most of the 114 years since the American pitbull terrier was f...

Children, Christmas, and Cute: BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 7 miles away BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 1 7 miles away 5th annual 4th of July BBQ June 30th from1 until ? Why do 90% of u think this is an orgy? t's not t's open to all Is it because I'm on this app? I try to invite all types of people men, women, gay, bi, str8, trans doesn't matter to me. Height Weight Ethnicity Body Type 6'0" 240 lbs White Stocky Gender Man BBQ not n ORGY 7 miles away Sun, Jun 17 Hey 2:47 PM Today I'm having my annual BBQ June 30th from 1pm until? slow cook pig, chicken wings, hamburgers, fish and vegetarian meals. No cost just bring your own booze. Sodas, tea, water is provided. Please feel free to bring ur wife, partner or just a date. This party is open to men, women, families. Gay, str8, bi, and the unknown. 3:48 PM Say something i-care-to-live: culdeefell: lumbaghini: consultingdoctorwholock: loki-against-onision: libertarirynn: keyhollow: klubbhead: gaypussyretard: panzerkampfwagentigerrausfb: libertybill: cecaeliawitch: radical-f: girlsmoonsandstars: kittyit: darren-fucking-chriss: verysiriusly: legendarylangst: mnemophile: gonefashion: psyducked: heterophobiac: This is the most bizarre yet pure thing I’ve ever encountered on grindr Are you going? these guys went and said it was wholesome and fun! and look what he said https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/grindr-bbq-not-orgy?utm_term=.ur27oKlpv#.yfXpzGdkZ update: he had a thanksgiving dinner and is having a christmas dinner in case y’all missed out on the bbq!! lgb-bq :’) The guy is a registered sex offender. Kidnapping of a minor and sexual assault. http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/details.aspx?SRN=011019S7 a serial child rapist trying to get “families” to attend his bbq. jesus christ god damn it it was literally shady from the fact that he posted it to Grindr like of course he was trying to reach a specific audience no wonder his family doesn’t talk to him Holy fuck i used to really like this post, thought it was cute. shame. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan Well this took an unpleasant turn since the last time I saw it No worries @loki-against-onision , I got one Ok, so, I researched this. I read his court files. What this guy did was he let two young couples who wanted to have sex away from their parents’ eyes into his house. Here’s a “statement of the facts” from an appeal after he was convicted: “Fourteen-year-old Stephanie was dating 18 year-old Timothy Cutshall; fifteen-year-old Rachelle was dating 23 year-old Chris Hall.  On the night in question, Hall and Cutshall asked the defendant to let them use his house for a liaison with the girls. The girls lied to their parents about where they were going, went to the defendant’s house, and had sex with Cutshall and Hall; the defendant never had sex with either girl. “The evidence was in conflict as to whether the defendant knew that the girls were underage.  There was no evidence that he knew they were younger enough than the men to render their otherwise consensual intercourse statutory rape.  Finally, there was no evidence that he knew that the girls did not have their parents’ permission to go to his house. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting statutory rape, second degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with children.” The person who shared his sex offender registry completely made up the “sexual assault” charge, and “kidnapping” didn’t sit right with me, so I looked into it. What actually happened was complicated. What it looks like to me is this dude, possibly under the influence of the alcohol he said ruined his life, made a stupid decision to trust these kids and had some creative prosecutors throw the book at him in every way they could think of. Wow that’s way worse. BBQ man is un-canceled. Let’s try and give him some happiness, he’s had shit luck. can we acknowledge how important CONTEXT is when we are “exposing” peoples lives, past, and especially convictions? thanks.
Children, Christmas, and Cute: BBQ not n ORGY 61
 Online now
 7 miles away

 BBQ not n ORGY 61
 Online now
 1 7 miles away
 5th annual 4th of July BBQ June 30th from1
 until ? Why do 90% of u think this is an orgy?
 t's not t's open to all Is it because I'm on this
 app? I try to invite all types of people men,
 women, gay, bi, str8, trans doesn't matter to
 me.
 Height
 Weight
 Ethnicity
 Body Type
 6'0"
 240 lbs
 White
 Stocky
 Gender
 Man

 BBQ not n ORGY
 7 miles away
 Sun, Jun 17
 Hey
 2:47 PM
 Today
 I'm having my annual BBQ June 30th
 from 1pm until? slow cook pig,
 chicken wings, hamburgers, fish and
 vegetarian meals. No cost just bring
 your own booze. Sodas, tea, water is
 provided. Please feel free to bring ur
 wife, partner or just a date. This
 party is open to men, women,
 families. Gay, str8, bi, and the
 unknown.
 3:48 PM
 Say something
i-care-to-live:
culdeefell:

lumbaghini:


consultingdoctorwholock:


loki-against-onision:


libertarirynn:


keyhollow:


klubbhead:

gaypussyretard:

panzerkampfwagentigerrausfb:

libertybill:

cecaeliawitch:


radical-f:

girlsmoonsandstars:


kittyit:


darren-fucking-chriss:

verysiriusly:


legendarylangst:


mnemophile:

gonefashion:

psyducked:

heterophobiac:
This is the most bizarre yet pure thing I’ve ever encountered on grindr

Are you going?

these guys went and said it was wholesome and fun!
and look what he said
https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/grindr-bbq-not-orgy?utm_term=.ur27oKlpv#.yfXpzGdkZ

update:
he had a thanksgiving dinner and is having a christmas dinner in case y’all missed out on the bbq!!


lgb-bq :’)


The guy is a registered sex offender. Kidnapping of a minor and sexual assault.


http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/details.aspx?SRN=011019S7

a serial child rapist trying to get “families” to attend his bbq. jesus christ


god damn it 


it was literally shady from the fact that he posted it to Grindr like of course he was trying to reach a specific audience 


no wonder his family doesn’t talk to him


Holy fuck 

i used to really like this post, thought it was cute. shame.




Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan




Well this took an unpleasant turn since the last time I saw it




No worries @loki-against-onision , I got one


Ok, so, I researched this. I read his court files.
What this guy did was he let two young couples who wanted to have sex away from their parents’ eyes into his house. Here’s a “statement of the facts” from an appeal after he was convicted:
“Fourteen-year-old Stephanie was dating 18 year-old Timothy Cutshall; fifteen-year-old Rachelle was dating 23 year-old Chris Hall.  On the night in question, Hall and Cutshall asked the defendant to let them use his house for a liaison with the girls. The girls lied to their parents about where they were going, went to the defendant’s house, and had sex with Cutshall and Hall; the defendant never had sex with either girl.
“The evidence was in conflict as to whether the defendant knew that the girls were underage.  There was no evidence that he knew they were younger enough than the men to render their otherwise consensual intercourse statutory rape.  Finally, there was no evidence that he knew that the girls did not have their parents’ permission to go to his house. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting statutory rape, second degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with children.”
The person who shared his sex offender registry completely made up the “sexual assault” charge, and “kidnapping” didn’t sit right with me, so I looked into it. What actually happened was complicated. What it looks like to me is this dude, possibly under the influence of the alcohol he said ruined his life, made a stupid decision to trust these kids and had some creative prosecutors throw the book at him in every way they could think of.


Wow that’s way worse.
BBQ man is un-canceled. Let’s try and give him some happiness, he’s had shit luck. 


can we acknowledge how important CONTEXT is when we are “exposing” peoples lives, past, and especially convictions? thanks.

i-care-to-live: culdeefell: lumbaghini: consultingdoctorwholock: loki-against-onision: libertarirynn: keyhollow: klubbhead: gayp...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

God, Tumblr, and Blog: bikti: Putting this on a shirt. I took some liberties with Shrike’s helmet because god knows there are no adequate references 
God, Tumblr, and Blog: bikti:
Putting this on a shirt. I took some liberties with Shrike’s helmet because god knows there are no adequate references 

bikti: Putting this on a shirt. I took some liberties with Shrike’s helmet because god knows there are no adequate references 

Beautiful, Confused, and Cute: Ca geekandmisandry: ptenterprises: sheisquiteacommonfairy: kaylapocalypse: alithographica: alithographica: igyid: alithographica: Liberty x Justice for all. Why did you make liberty black and justice Muslim ? So here’s a distilled explanation of Why Liberty Is Black and Why Justice Is Muslim for those who are confused by the rampant inaccuracies. I’ll spell it out. Artistic license I live in the US and the political landscape is a dumpster fire. This is a protest piece. Liberty and Justice are concepts based loosely on ancient gods from a multiracial civilization. They are also deeply American concepts, and one of the great American dreams is that we are a melting pot of equality* for all races and religions. *Terms and conditions may apply. With the political point I’m trying to make, those 3 things are more than enough to justify this depiction. (Not that it even needs justification; it’s my personal art.) Educational sidebar: A nonwhite Lady Liberty is actually well-founded: Consider that The Statue of Liberty was originally proposed by the president of the French Emancipation Society. Prior to designing the Statue of Liberty, the sculptor had wanted to build a similar piece on the Suez Canal based on an Egyptian peasant woman. This never came to fruition but became an early iteration of our American Lady Liberty. Also there’s a black Lady Liberty coin coming soon (and this coin was a major design element for Lady Liberty here). But honestly ‘accuracy’ is beside the point. For all of the questions I’ve gotten on this piece, 90% relate to the race/religion of Liberty and Justice. People are bothered by the perceived inaccuracies there and totally skip over the gay part. I imagine that Liberty and Justice kissing should, maybe, also be considered inaccurate because that’s actually where I took the biggest leap. I literally had no reason to do it except it’s that cute and gay and political. I personified the judicial system coming to protect the liberties of people legislatively marginalized for their race or religion…as two queer women. Yet somehow that is not the most inaccurate part to people. No, god forbid anyone depict two //personified concepts// as nonwhite to represent and recognize the vast marginalization of POC in this country, particularly black and Muslim communities. p.s. the fact that Libertas and Iusticia are both conceived as female by Greeks and Romans is also arbitrary maybe one or both of them are actually transwomen or genderqueer or agender because everything cultural that you hold dear is a construct have a good day Hi @ghostlune​ I can see from your blog that we just think of the world in two fundamentally different ways but I don’t think that’s reason to not have a little historical education 1. French is a nationality, not a race. You can, in fact, be black and French. What I suspect you meant is “the Statue of Liberty is a white woman”. 2. Please refer to the “Educational sidebar” section above where I discuss why a nonwhite Liberty is pretty in-line with both the French and American visions of her. It has citations and everything. It’s cool, I promise. GET 👏THEM 👏ALITHOGRAPHICA👏 This is so beautiful and amazing. Given everything happening right now and what has been happening for pretty much time immemorial, having either Liberty or Justice be white would be not only inaccurate, but an insult to both. You’re made about her erasing the whiteness of “characters” that have never been able to be confirmed as white. How do you know what race the statue of liberty is? They are unpainted fucking statues, vague visual representatives of human ideals. If you think they default to white then all that says is that white is the default to you and everything else is viewed as being a deviation.
Beautiful, Confused, and Cute: Ca
geekandmisandry:

ptenterprises:

sheisquiteacommonfairy:


kaylapocalypse:

alithographica:

alithographica:

igyid:

alithographica:
Liberty x Justice for all.

Why did you make liberty black and justice Muslim ?

So here’s a distilled explanation of Why Liberty Is Black and Why Justice Is Muslim for those who are confused by the rampant inaccuracies. I’ll spell it out.
Artistic license
I live in the US and the political landscape is a dumpster fire. This is a protest piece.
Liberty and Justice are concepts based loosely on ancient gods from a multiracial civilization. They are also deeply American concepts, and one of the great American dreams is that we are a melting pot of equality* for all races and religions.
*Terms and conditions may apply.
With the political point I’m trying to make, those 3 things are more than enough to justify this depiction. (Not that it even needs justification; it’s my personal art.)
Educational sidebar: A nonwhite Lady Liberty is actually well-founded: Consider that The Statue of Liberty was originally proposed by the president of the French Emancipation Society. Prior to designing the Statue of Liberty, the sculptor had wanted to build a similar piece on the Suez Canal based on an Egyptian peasant woman. This never came to fruition but became an early iteration of our American Lady Liberty. Also there’s a black Lady Liberty coin coming soon (and this coin was a major design element for Lady Liberty here).
But honestly ‘accuracy’ is beside the point.
For all of the questions I’ve gotten on this piece, 90% relate to the race/religion of Liberty and Justice. People are bothered by the perceived inaccuracies there and totally skip over the gay part. I imagine that Liberty and Justice kissing should, maybe, also be considered inaccurate because that’s actually where I took the biggest leap. I literally had no reason to do it except it’s that cute and gay and political. I personified the judicial system coming to protect the liberties of people legislatively marginalized for their race or religion…as two queer women. Yet somehow that is not the most inaccurate part to people.
No, god forbid anyone depict two //personified concepts// as nonwhite to represent and recognize the vast marginalization of POC in this country, particularly black and Muslim communities.
p.s. the fact that Libertas and Iusticia are both conceived as female by Greeks and Romans is also arbitrary maybe one or both of them are actually transwomen or genderqueer or agender because everything cultural that you hold dear is a construct have a good day

Hi @ghostlune​ I can see from your blog that we just think of the world in two fundamentally different ways but I don’t think that’s reason to not have a little historical education
1. French is a nationality, not a race. You can, in fact, be black and French. What I suspect you meant is “the Statue of Liberty is a white woman”.
2. Please refer to the “Educational sidebar” section above where I discuss why a nonwhite Liberty is pretty in-line with both the French and American visions of her. It has citations and everything. It’s cool, I promise.

GET 👏THEM 👏ALITHOGRAPHICA👏


This is so beautiful and amazing.


Given everything happening right now and what has been happening for pretty much time immemorial, having either Liberty or Justice be white would be not only inaccurate, but an insult to both.


You’re made about her erasing the whiteness of “characters” that have never been able to be confirmed as white. 
How do you know what race the statue of liberty is? They are unpainted fucking statues, vague visual representatives of human ideals. 
If you think they default to white then all that says is that white is the default to you and everything else is viewed as being a deviation.

geekandmisandry: ptenterprises: sheisquiteacommonfairy: kaylapocalypse: alithographica: alithographica: igyid: alithographica: Liber...

Obama, Shit, and Tumblr: SHHH! YOU FUCKED UP.. THISIS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE NOT OUALIFIED left-reminders: phoenix-ace: left-reminders: They stay scapegoating Obama for shit he didnt create and infantalize trump in order to make Obama look like he forced Trump to be awful. As if the man wasnt a segregationist whos been xenophobic for decades. Edit: not OP the “they” doesnt refer to them. Leftists aren’t “scapegoating” Obama or sympathizing with Trump. We’re just being honest about the regressive policies of Obama and the Democrat establishment. Trump is demonstrably awful, a garbage excuse for a human being, but can we please not excuse the imperialism and mass surveillance and rich-catering of Democrats just because they trumpet progressive values? Part of overcoming Trump is recognizing and organizing against the conditions that gave rise to him: 40 years of trickle-down economics, drug wars, international interventions for the profits of big oil, and active union-busting, to name a piece of the puzzle. Vote for Democrats as damage control if you want, but just know that they’re ultimately not on your side. They serve the rich first and foremost. Y’all democrats have to realize that bush set up ICE, wiretapping of the American people, ruined our education system, stripped us of countless civil liberties, sent us to Two wars, pushed the patriot act. and Obama continued all this and even extended the bush tax cuts and expanded warfare. Now trump has all these tools at his disposal as democrats rehabilitate bush and pretend Obama wasn’t complicit in any of this 🙄
Obama, Shit, and Tumblr: SHHH! YOU FUCKED UP..
 THISIS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
 YOU'RE NOT
 OUALIFIED
left-reminders:

phoenix-ace:

left-reminders:
They stay scapegoating Obama for shit he didnt create and infantalize trump in order to make Obama look like he forced Trump to be awful.  As if the man wasnt a segregationist whos been xenophobic for decades.  Edit: not OP the “they” doesnt refer to them.  

Leftists aren’t “scapegoating” Obama or sympathizing with Trump. We’re just being honest about the regressive policies of Obama and the Democrat establishment. Trump is demonstrably awful, a garbage excuse for a human being, but can we please not excuse the imperialism and mass surveillance and rich-catering of Democrats just because they trumpet progressive values? Part of overcoming Trump is recognizing and organizing against the conditions that gave rise to him: 40 years of trickle-down economics, drug wars, international interventions for the profits of big oil, and active union-busting, to name a piece of the puzzle. Vote for Democrats as damage control if you want, but just know that they’re ultimately not on your side. They serve the rich first and foremost. 

Y’all democrats have to realize that bush set up ICE, wiretapping of the American people, ruined our education system, stripped us of countless civil liberties, sent us to Two wars, pushed the patriot act. and Obama continued all this and even extended the bush tax cuts and expanded warfare. Now trump has all these tools at his disposal as democrats rehabilitate bush and pretend Obama wasn’t complicit in any of this 🙄

left-reminders: phoenix-ace: left-reminders: They stay scapegoating Obama for shit he didnt create and infantalize trump in order to make ...

9/11, America, and Bad: CAN Following @CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking place in the United States because it "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it /2uhH6uB 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes Brotha EB @BlakeDontCrack Following George Bush literally created ICE CNN@CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration debate taking place in the United States because it undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018 391 Retweets 903 Likes n0rdicalien: c-bassmeow: sodomymcscurvylegs: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too. Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/ This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.” nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump.  Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously.  Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act.  He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act.  The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so.  so no…. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded.  Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.   Do not rehabilitate this man. Please.  i heard ICE also prevents child/human trafficking. Is that true? Even if it does that’s a smokescreen to distract us from how evil it is. The US military sometimes does “good” by giving aide to famished countries yet often it’s the one creating the famines lol We can have a non militarized agency that deals with human trafficking without ripping children from their families and without being hostile to brown immigrants who are often fleeing extreme violence and penury some caused by the US. Also for those who are concerned about border security we had border security before ICE was invented. ICE is not needed at all. Plus the border security BS is overrated since immigrants commit less crimes than non immigrants and if we legalize drugs and regulated them and taxed them gang violence and Mafia like activity that occurs on the border will cease to exist. We are the cause of a lot of this. We create a problem and then make it worse by our militarized non-solutions. Lastly, if my sources are correct ICE has lost many children who have possibly been lost to human traffickers so . some job they’re doing.
9/11, America, and Bad: CAN
 Following
 @CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is
 "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking
 place in the United States because it
 "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it
 /2uhH6uB
 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018
 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
n0rdicalien:

c-bassmeow:
sodomymcscurvylegs:

whyyoustabbedme:

whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/

This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.”

nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump. 
Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously. 
Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act. 
He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act. 
The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so. 
so no…. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded. 

Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.  

Do not rehabilitate this man. Please. 

i heard ICE also prevents child/human trafficking. Is that true?

Even if it does that’s a smokescreen to distract us from how evil it is. The US military sometimes does “good” by giving aide to famished countries yet often it’s the one creating the famines lol We can have a non militarized agency that deals with human trafficking without ripping children from their families and without being hostile to brown immigrants who are often fleeing extreme violence and penury some caused by the US. Also for those who are concerned about border security we had border security before ICE was invented. ICE is not needed at all. Plus the border security BS is overrated since immigrants commit less crimes than non immigrants and if we legalize drugs and regulated them and taxed them gang violence and Mafia like activity that occurs on the border will cease to exist. We are the cause of a lot of this. We create a problem and then make it worse by our militarized non-solutions. Lastly, if my sources are correct ICE has lost many children who have possibly been lost to human traffickers so . some job they’re doing.

n0rdicalien: c-bassmeow: sodomymcscurvylegs: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because y...

9/11, America, and Bad: CAN Following @CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking place in the United States because it "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it /2uhH6uB 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes Brotha EB @BlakeDontCrack Following George Bush literally created ICE CNN@CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration debate taking place in the United States because it undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018 391 Retweets 903 Likes sodomymcscurvylegs: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too. Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/ This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.” nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump. Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously. Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act. He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act. The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so. so no. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded. Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.  Do not rehabilitate this man. Please. 
9/11, America, and Bad: CAN
 Following
 @CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is
 "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking
 place in the United States because it
 "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it
 /2uhH6uB
 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018
 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
sodomymcscurvylegs:

whyyoustabbedme:

whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/

This is all correct and this dude is a war criminal, but imagine how bad things are that the dude that used the death of thousands of Americans to invade the wrong country for oil and subsequently kill thousands on both sides on one of America’s shitty wars looks at the current dude in power and is flabbergasted. Like, straight up: “this is too fucked up even for me.”

nah Bush was shit and so far he is worse than Trump. Obviously Trump has been in office for less time and can def outdo Bush but bush is still far worse and far more authoritarian than Trump. Not only did Bush create ICE he also sent us to two wars built on false pretenses that have cost us TRILLIONS of dollars AND didn’t kill thousands, it killed MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi’s and other peoples. Trump’s death toll isn’t even close. So far obviously. Then he ruined our education system and put even worse economic incentives on it with the no child left behind act. He stripped us of several civil liberties that newer generations now take for granted such as privacy with the patriot act. The NSA was created to spy on US citizens despite intelligence agencies (which liberals now adore since Trump attacked their “integrity) lying to our faces under oath (which is super illegal) that they weren’t doing so. so no. Bush is trying to make himself feel good by being ant-Trump. He is more than just a war criminal and frankly so far, again, he was much worse. We cannot let historical amnesia take over. He gave Trump all the tools to be an authoritarian monster, tools that Obama, mind you, never disbanded. Trump is a piece of shit and again can very well outdo Bush but Bush and his administration  were literally evil and so far have been way worse. The post 9/11 political and economic trauma we have all experienced were his administrations fault. oh yeah also the crash of the economy and the lost livelihoods of MILLIONS of people including my mother who couldn’t find a job for ages was his administrations doing.  Do not rehabilitate this man. Please. 

sodomymcscurvylegs: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapo...

Doctor, Food, and Memes: I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the crap. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ...everywhere! Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food. After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ..... quiet, serene.... and no one demanding their rights to a free meal. Now let's see......Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; Your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English. Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than ”ours” are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties. Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder. If you agree, pass it on; if not, just continue cleaning up the crap!! @unclesamsmisguidedchildren
Doctor, Food, and Memes: I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the crap. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table ...everywhere! Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food. After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be ..... quiet, serene.... and no one demanding their rights to a free meal. Now let's see......Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; Your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English. Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than ”ours” are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties. Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder. If you agree, pass it on; if not, just continue cleaning up the crap!! @unclesamsmisguidedchildren

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly w...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
peteschult:

libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.


Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever.
Get rid of pigs!

peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legall...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
<p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p>
<p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p>
<p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p>
<p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p>
<p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p>
<p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p>
<p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p>
<p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p>
<p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p>
<p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p>
<p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Important </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>

gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against...

College, Goals, and Head: #ENOUGH NATIONAL SCHOOL WALKOUT -MARCH 14, 2018 WOMEN'S MARCH YOUTH EMPeWER the-occult-babe: geekinglikeaboss: weavemama: e-v-roslyn: weavemama: IT’S OFFICIAL. There will be a national school walkout on March 14th. This walkout demands action to finally be taken on gun violence. No more students deserve to be gunned down because lawmakers don’t wanna do anything about it. We are the generation that’s being affected the most by these weak gun laws, and WE are the ones who should be protesting about it. One student dying because of a gunman is one too many. SPREAD THE WORD, this applies to ALL students!! @weavemama What if our spring break falls on that day? How else can we pitch in? There’s another walkout date on April 20th! For the 18th anniversary of Columbine. OKAY!!! REALLY QUICK CAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS!!#1: YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT END ONCE YOU WALK INTO THE SCHOOL! You need to take a good long look at your rights and civil liberties because they will be called into question. I would strongly advise contact an ACLU representative and asking them about this so you are prepared to defend yourselves from a legal stand point because the shit is going to hit the fan and it’s going to hit it hard. #2: DO NOT RISE OR RESPOND TO THREATS! There will be threats. They will threaten to put you in detention, call your parents, expel you, get rid of your extra curricular activities, et cetera. Anything they can to control the situation  before the media gets involved or the school board. You must have solidarity within your participants, lock arms, form prayer circles, sit down and do not stand. Do whatever it takes to show a non-violent, passive approach to show that it is your intention to disrupt and draw attention to the problem without being physically confrontational.#3: SELECT A SPEAKER! Sooner or later, camera crews are going to show up. This is where messages get mixed and it becomes very easy to loose track of your goals. Draft a short speech, under 30 seconds, and select a speaker for your school who will address the media with the concerns of the student body and the demands you have before you will return to school and your education.#4: TAKE YOUR EDUCATION INTO YOUR OWN HANDS! This is not a chance to take advantage and get some time off school. The media WILL USE THIS as an excuse to discredit you. If you can, get teachers on board who will provide you with a curriculum that you can continue to work on from home. Do NOT GIVE UP YOUR EDUCATION! Refuse to participate in a government funded system of education which denies you basic safety.#5: If you can, GET YOUR TEACHERS INVOLVED! Is there a teacher your trust as a group? Is there a teacher who would offer their support, voice and guidance during this walk out? Get them involved. I know it’s not fair, but teen voices are underrated and overlooked. Having an adult head the operation or at the very least being willing to speak out IN YOUR FAVOR ON CAMERA will go a long way to adding legitimacy to your cause! Remember, their lives are in danger too, and more than once a teacher has put themselves between the shooter and their students. Ask them to be a part of this if you can. I don’t think this applies to college but for all you kiddos
College, Goals, and Head:  #ENOUGH
 NATIONAL SCHOOL
 WALKOUT
 -MARCH 14, 2018
 WOMEN'S MARCH YOUTH
 EMPeWER
the-occult-babe:
geekinglikeaboss:

weavemama:

e-v-roslyn:


weavemama:

IT’S OFFICIAL. There will be a national school walkout on March 14th. This walkout demands action to finally be taken on gun violence. No more students deserve to be gunned down because lawmakers don’t wanna do anything about it. We are the generation that’s being affected the most by these weak gun laws, and WE are the ones who should be protesting about it. One student dying because of a gunman is one too many. SPREAD THE WORD, this applies to ALL students!!

@weavemama What if our spring break falls on that day? How else can we pitch in?


There’s another walkout date on April 20th! For  the 18th anniversary of Columbine. 

OKAY!!! REALLY QUICK CAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS!!#1: YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT END ONCE YOU WALK INTO THE SCHOOL! You need to take a good long look at your rights and civil liberties because they will be called into question. I would strongly advise contact an ACLU representative and asking them about this so you are prepared to defend yourselves from a legal stand point because the shit is going to hit the fan and it’s going to hit it hard.
#2: DO NOT RISE OR RESPOND TO THREATS! There will be threats. They will threaten to put you in detention, call your parents, expel you, get rid of your extra curricular activities, et cetera. Anything they can to control the situation  before the media gets involved or the school board. You must have solidarity within your participants, lock arms, form prayer circles, sit down and do not stand. Do whatever it takes to show a non-violent, passive approach to show that it is your intention to disrupt and draw attention to the problem without being physically confrontational.#3: SELECT A SPEAKER! Sooner or later, camera crews are going to show up. This is where messages get mixed and it becomes very easy to loose track of your goals. Draft a short speech, under 30 seconds, and select a speaker for your school who will address the media with the concerns of the student body and the demands you have before you will return to school and your education.#4: TAKE YOUR EDUCATION INTO YOUR OWN HANDS! This is not a chance to take advantage and get some time off school. The media WILL USE THIS as an excuse to discredit you. If you can, get teachers on board who will provide you with a curriculum that you can continue to work on from home. Do NOT GIVE UP YOUR EDUCATION! Refuse to participate in a government funded system of education which denies you basic safety.#5: If you can, GET YOUR TEACHERS INVOLVED! Is there a teacher your trust as a group? Is there a teacher who would offer their support, voice and guidance during this walk out? Get them involved. I know it’s not fair, but teen voices are underrated and overlooked. Having an adult head the operation or at the very least being willing to speak out IN YOUR FAVOR ON CAMERA will go a long way to adding legitimacy to your cause! Remember, their lives are in danger too, and more than once a teacher has put themselves between the shooter and their students. Ask them to be a part of this if you can. 


I don’t think this applies to college but for all you kiddos

the-occult-babe: geekinglikeaboss: weavemama: e-v-roslyn: weavemama: IT’S OFFICIAL. There will be a national school walkout on March 14...

Assassination, cnn.com, and Complex: <p><a href="https://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/171052175078/when-can-a-government-kill-its-own-people-rip" class="tumblr_blog">priceofliberty</a>:</p> <blockquote><h2><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/politics/us-killing-americans/">When can a government kill its own people?</a></h2><p style=""> <b>R.I.P. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.</b> He would be a young man now. Abdulrahman was killed alongside his 17-year old cousin by a U.S. drone strike on October 14, 2011. He and his father were both U.S. citizens killed by drone strikes. Abdulrahman’s murder has been called a “mistake” by the government, but no one has been held accountable for the loss of his life. <br/></p><p>The Obama Administration, with the complicity of Attorney General Eric Holder, <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fjolt.law.harvard.edu%2Fdigest%2Fnational-security%2Fdepartment-of-justice-white-paper-reveals-united-states-position-on-lethal-force-operations-targeting-u-s-citizens-abroad&amp;t=ZmVhN2U3ZGE0ZDI0NmFlOGFlNmQ0OWYxZTU5OGU5ZmYxMzM1NDA0NSxyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">released a white paper</a> justifying the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“drones”) against any target in the world they have deemed a threat (<a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F07%2F07%2Fus%2Fin-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html&amp;t=ZTEyZjU4MmVhZmU4ZjJlYWRkZTk2OWY3OThiZDU0ZWY4MTc2M2Y1MixyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">through a secret process governed by a secret court</a>) including American citizens. Worse still, targets are chosen by the “<a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2F2012%2F10%2Fdisposition-matrix&amp;t=MGY3MDAwZjMxZmQyYTMxZDU4NjlmYTgxYjM3OTA0NmQyNDYzZGJiNixyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">disposition matrix</a>,” a complex database which utilizes coded algorithms to <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2012%2Foct%2F24%2Fobama-terrorism-kill-list&amp;t=OGI4ZTk4ZDEzYzEwNTVlNjE4MTUzNjNhOGNlM2ZhMTU3YTMyNWIxZixyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">ascertain threats based upon surveillanc</a>e acquired by the <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fnsa-spying&amp;t=NTBjNWNjZmI5OGMwZmMzY2FkYjY4ZmM1MWIyN2U4Mjg2NDgxNmZmNyxyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">NSA’s illegal programs</a>.  #lesseroftwoevils</p><p>tl;dr The paper concludes that the <b>government’s interest in protecting its citizens from imminent attacks will outweigh the target’s interest in avoiding “erroneous deprivation of [his] life”</b> which is exactly what happened to an innocent 16-year-old American named <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FAbdulrahman_al-Awlaki%26ei%3D_WUsVbyzOOS0sAS6yYGgDQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGUpMziI3o6WhbWcKwjAL2Fln18Dw%26sig2%3DdxgKZpZeLaCtaO79T5_8mQ%26bvm%3Dbv.90790515%2Cd.cWc&amp;t=Mjc3ZjYwNTUyZmFjNTFhNmE5MzJjMTMxYjY1NjgzMDUxN2QyMmNlNCxyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">Abdulrahman al-Awlaki</a>. </p><p> A US federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by the families of three American citizens killed by drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war. (<a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2014%2Fapr%2F05%2Fdrone-killings-case-thrown-out-in-us&amp;t=OGYwMmMyNTU2ZDgxMjg0MDA1ZGRiMzUyMDdhMjM0YzZiYjhjN2U5OCxHbHozS0FXYQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F81935383934%2Fthefreelioness-a-us-federal-judge-has-dismissed&amp;m=1">x</a>) Let us be clear: if this an act of conducting war, the war is clearly against all people who oppose American Imperialism, along with their loved ones, whether they be violent opposition or not. And in this case, the act of war was implemented against an American child.</p><p>A while ago we heard the government was considering <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Fcivil-liberties%2Famerica-preparing-murder-its-5th-citizen-remote-assassination-founders-are-turning&amp;t=YzEyM2U0M2E2NThlZjY4YWFlNGExMTg5ODMzOGJhMTNmNTZiODk3MixHbHozS0FXYQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F81935383934%2Fthefreelioness-a-us-federal-judge-has-dismissed&amp;m=1">assassinating its 5th American citizen by drone</a> without charges or trial, but shortly thereafter the administration announced it would <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fthefreelioness.com%2Fpost%2F77306482639%2Fwhite-house-no-more-information-about-drone-killings&amp;t=M2E1NjdhZmVjMTUyYWFhODBhZmFhNjBhZjY0NjZiMzYyOWNmYzM0NixHbHozS0FXYQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F81935383934%2Fthefreelioness-a-us-federal-judge-has-dismissed&amp;m=1">no longer be informing the public of who it decided to kill</a> by drone strike.</p></blockquote> <p>But&hellip; but Obama is a Woke Bae™!</p>
Assassination, cnn.com, and Complex: <p><a href="https://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/171052175078/when-can-a-government-kill-its-own-people-rip" class="tumblr_blog">priceofliberty</a>:</p>

<blockquote><h2><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/politics/us-killing-americans/">When can a government kill its own people?</a></h2><p style="">

<b>R.I.P. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.</b> He would be a young man now. Abdulrahman was killed alongside his 17-year old cousin by a U.S. drone strike on October 14, 2011. He and his father were both U.S. citizens killed by drone strikes. Abdulrahman’s murder has been called a “mistake” by the government, but no one has been held accountable for the loss of his life.

<br/></p><p>The Obama Administration, with the complicity of Attorney General Eric Holder, <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fjolt.law.harvard.edu%2Fdigest%2Fnational-security%2Fdepartment-of-justice-white-paper-reveals-united-states-position-on-lethal-force-operations-targeting-u-s-citizens-abroad&amp;t=ZmVhN2U3ZGE0ZDI0NmFlOGFlNmQ0OWYxZTU5OGU5ZmYxMzM1NDA0NSxyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">released a white paper</a> justifying the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“drones”) against any target in the world they have deemed a threat (<a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F07%2F07%2Fus%2Fin-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html&amp;t=ZTEyZjU4MmVhZmU4ZjJlYWRkZTk2OWY3OThiZDU0ZWY4MTc2M2Y1MixyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">through a secret process governed by a secret court</a>) including American citizens. Worse still, targets are chosen by the “<a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2F2012%2F10%2Fdisposition-matrix&amp;t=MGY3MDAwZjMxZmQyYTMxZDU4NjlmYTgxYjM3OTA0NmQyNDYzZGJiNixyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">disposition matrix</a>,” a complex database which utilizes coded algorithms to <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2012%2Foct%2F24%2Fobama-terrorism-kill-list&amp;t=OGI4ZTk4ZDEzYzEwNTVlNjE4MTUzNjNhOGNlM2ZhMTU3YTMyNWIxZixyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">ascertain threats based upon surveillanc</a>e acquired by the <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fnsa-spying&amp;t=NTBjNWNjZmI5OGMwZmMzY2FkYjY4ZmM1MWIyN2U4Mjg2NDgxNmZmNyxyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">NSA’s illegal programs</a>.  #lesseroftwoevils</p><p>tl;dr The paper concludes that the <b>government’s interest in protecting its citizens from imminent attacks will outweigh the target’s interest in avoiding “erroneous deprivation of [his] life”</b> which is exactly what happened to an innocent 16-year-old American named <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FAbdulrahman_al-Awlaki%26ei%3D_WUsVbyzOOS0sAS6yYGgDQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGUpMziI3o6WhbWcKwjAL2Fln18Dw%26sig2%3DdxgKZpZeLaCtaO79T5_8mQ%26bvm%3Dbv.90790515%2Cd.cWc&amp;t=Mjc3ZjYwNTUyZmFjNTFhNmE5MzJjMTMxYjY1NjgzMDUxN2QyMmNlNCxyVGZzazdjTQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F116342066828%2Fthe-obama-administration-with-the-complicity-of&amp;m=1">Abdulrahman al-Awlaki</a>. </p><p>

A US federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by the families of three American citizens killed by drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war. (<a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2014%2Fapr%2F05%2Fdrone-killings-case-thrown-out-in-us&amp;t=OGYwMmMyNTU2ZDgxMjg0MDA1ZGRiMzUyMDdhMjM0YzZiYjhjN2U5OCxHbHozS0FXYQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F81935383934%2Fthefreelioness-a-us-federal-judge-has-dismissed&amp;m=1">x</a>) Let us be clear: if this an act of conducting war, the war is clearly against all people who oppose American Imperialism, along with their loved ones, whether they be violent opposition or not. And in this case, the act of war was implemented against an American child.</p><p>A while ago we heard the government was considering <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Fcivil-liberties%2Famerica-preparing-murder-its-5th-citizen-remote-assassination-founders-are-turning&amp;t=YzEyM2U0M2E2NThlZjY4YWFlNGExMTg5ODMzOGJhMTNmNTZiODk3MixHbHozS0FXYQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F81935383934%2Fthefreelioness-a-us-federal-judge-has-dismissed&amp;m=1">assassinating its 5th American citizen by drone</a> without charges or trial, but shortly thereafter the administration announced it would <a href="https://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fthefreelioness.com%2Fpost%2F77306482639%2Fwhite-house-no-more-information-about-drone-killings&amp;t=M2E1NjdhZmVjMTUyYWFhODBhZmFhNjBhZjY0NjZiMzYyOWNmYzM0NixHbHozS0FXYQ%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3A_S8dLg6KLAVryk75cPCPYg&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Fpriceofliberty.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F81935383934%2Fthefreelioness-a-us-federal-judge-has-dismissed&amp;m=1">no longer be informing the public of who it decided to kill</a> by drone strike.</p></blockquote>

<p>But&hellip; but Obama is a Woke Bae™!</p>

priceofliberty: When can a government kill its own people? R.I.P. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He would be a young man now. Abdulrahman was kill...

9/11, Being Alone, and America: THIS IS NOT A "WELL- REGULATED MILITIA." AND THIS IS NOT A MUSKET. Times have changed Shouldn't our gun laws? OCCUPY D EMOCRATS <p><a href="http://schweizerqualit.at/post/169647951974/theheartbrokenlibertarian" class="tumblr_blog">schweizerqualitaet</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://theheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com/post/169639890186/inkedandproudinfidel-proudliberal11-lets" class="tumblr_blog">theheartbrokenlibertarian</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://inkedandproudinfidel.tumblr.com/post/169567922822/proudliberal11-lets-regulate-the-unregulated" class="tumblr_blog">inkedandproudinfidel</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://proudliberal11.tumblr.com/post/169279939060/lets-regulate-the-unregulated-populace" class="tumblr_blog">proudliberal11</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Let’s regulate the unregulated populace!</p></blockquote> <p>No they shouldn’t…</p> <p>All those above broke many laws in what they did including the possession of those firearms and it did nothing to save lives. Stop being ignorant…</p> </blockquote> <p>OH MY GOSH. THIS SHIT AGAIN?</p> <p>Okay, I’m bringing this back. Sorry to alla yall who’ve had to sit through this before. But for fuuuuuuuuuuuck’s saaaaaaaaaake people!</p> <p><br/></p> <p><b>Where does the Second Amendment say “musket”? Show me where it says musket. In fact, show me where it even says <i>GUNS</i>. Show me where it puts ANY limits on what <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms"><i>arms</i></a> we can keep and bear. Show me the words.</b></p> <p><b>You cannot; they are not there.</b></p> <p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mcpMWUpnSYWxH6sA7gfOiUg">@proudliberal11</a> If what you posted is really what you believe - and I do <i>honestly </i>mean this in the nicest possible way - then you are not qualified to speak on the subject of the Second Amendment with any modicum of authority. You can have your own feelings and opinions, <i>of course</i>, but you clearly do not have the <i>facts</i>, and you do not understand the law, its adoption, the reasons behind it, or its intent. If you just want guns gone or want new laws, then simply petition the government to begin the process of repealing the Second Amendment and/or amending the Constitution (good luck with that, though), but <i>please </i>don’t try to change or erase history!</p> <p><b>There is NO DEBATE on the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment.</b> That was settled and made clear <i>a long time ago</i>, and it has nothing to do with what you think a “militia” is, for one thing, and nothing to do with “muskets” either, for that matter. </p> <p>The Founding Fathers didn’t just shit out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights overnight or off the top of their heads. They didn’t forget about it until the night before it was due. These things were discussed and debated and researched and proven over the course of <b><i>several </i></b><i><b>months</b></i>, and <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html">those discussions and debates were thoroughly documented</a>. This drafting would have been equivalent to the 9/11 news coverage of the day! It was a BIG DEAL, even then; they knew they were building history. People were watching, recording, discussing everywhere. It’s ALL written down.</p> <p>The Framers were <i>extremely clear</i> about exactly what they intended, solid evidence of which you can find by studying <a href="http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm">contemporary literature</a> and documentation <a href="https://wallbuilders.com/founders-second-amendment/">surrounding the authoring</a> of the Second Amendment. Letters, speeches, publications, etc., <a href="http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm">written by and to the framers</a>, as well as the public, - which <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Feducation.blogs.archives.gov%2F2016%2F05%2F10%2Fteaching-the-second-amendment%2F&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNH7ovpuftRdhqKahPIpnnED_tmYGA">clearly spell out</a> the full intent of the law, <a href="http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/19adec.pdf">explain the law</a> in simple terms, and give insight into popular and official <a href="https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers">opinion about the law</a> - are still freely available today. I’ve linked a handful, but it’s very easy to find this information, and I encourage - nay, <i>beg </i>- you to seek it out. </p> <p>Here are just a few examples, though, in case you don’t feel like researching something so extremely important:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>—–&gt; “I ask who are the <i>militia</i>? They consist now of <i>the whole people</i>, except a few public officers.”</b><br/>- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 </p> <p><b>“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, <i><u>composed of the body of the people</u></i>, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”</b><br/>- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 <br/></p> <p><b> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 <br/></p> <p><b>“To preserve liberty, it is essential that <u><i>the whole body of the people</i> always possess <i>arms</i></u>, and be taught alike, <i>especially when young</i>, how to use them.” </b><br/>- Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress<br/></p> <p><b>“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that <i>their people</i> preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 <br/></p> <p><b>[On our military superiority over a tyrannical enemy] …This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; <i>every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy</i>.“</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 <br/></p> <p><b>“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”</b><br/>- George Mason, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788</p> <p><b>“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; <i><u>because the whole body of the people are armed</u></i>, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”</b><br/>- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787</p> </blockquote> <p>That could not be more clear. This “militia” is us. It’s you and me and everyone reading this and everyone else. <b>THE MILITIA IS THE PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS, YOU AND ME.</b></p> <p>If nothing else, please do take a look at <a href="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html"><b>THIS DOCUMENT</b></a>. It lays out the history and the clear reasoning behind the Founding Fathers’ drafting of the Second Amendment. It is thoroughly sourced, and it is detailed.</p> <p>As you can see, looking at what is here, juxtaposed with what we have in place today, we have already strayed extremely far from the original intent of the document as well as from the letter of its law - we have already infringed our God-given (and merely government-<i>protected</i>) inalienable rights to hell and back - and we the people are NOT happy to give away another inch, no matter how “mean” you <i>feel</i> icky-o guns may be.</p> <p>And as for the document itself:<br/><br/></p> <h2><b>Let me break the Second Amendment down for you.</b></h2> <p><i>BUT FIRST!</i> Before I get into that, you <i>must u</i>nderstand that <i><b>language is fluid</b></i> and that it changes over the years, that the definitions of words change and adapt all the time. For example, the word “great” used to exclusively mean very large, the word “terrible” used to exclusively mean awe-inspiringly, the word “sick” used to exclusively mean ill, the word “woman” used to exclusively mean adult person born with a vagina, and so on. Therefore, you must look at the words and phrasing from the point of view of 1791, the <i>time it was written</i>, and you can’t apply our current use of language to it, and you must keep that in mind as you read older texts. And just because <i>language changes</i>, that does NOT mean the original intent of words changes, too. Quite the contrary.</p> <blockquote><p><b>“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to <i>the time when the Constitution was adopted</i>, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, <i>or invented against it</i>, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 <br/></p></blockquote> <p>ALSO:</p> <blockquote><p> <b>Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. <br/></b>– James Madison, on the creation of the Constitution<br/></p></blockquote> <p>So ok, sit tight, here we go.</p> <h2><b>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.</b></h2> <blockquote><p><b>A <i>WELL REGULATED</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fcons%2Fwellregu.htm&amp;t=ODBlNzBjMmRjNjk4OGI5MmVkZjU3YjYzODk0N2YxYjEzYzY4YTRmNSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> hooked up; well outfitted; well provided for; has lots of all the latest and greatest things; well-armed<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> heavily legislated; under intense governmental scrutiny; subject to lots of laws and ordinances</p> <blockquote><p><b>MILITIA</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fcs_milit.htm&amp;t=ZjA3NGRjMzQ2YThkZjE2YzE3NWFkMWFiNmYwOGY3ZmQ2Zjg0MTVjMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the populace; a general, unofficial body of those citizens physically able to engage themselves in combat; those of us who have guns; a self organized and self managed group of people gathered for the purposes of defense<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> official, government-sanctioned, -approved, and -run military installment that is slightly less formal than the Armed Forces; a junior or local sub-branch of the federal Armed Forces</p> <blockquote><p><b>BEING NECESSARY TO</b></p></blockquote> <p><b>MEANS:</b> is the reason why; is required for; also, the wording here, and the preceding comma, replaces using “because this…” at the beginning of the sentence as we would use it today - it’s just rearranged<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> if it becomes needed; only when needed; in times of threat but not otherwise</p> <blockquote><p><b>THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Flrev%2Frkba_wayment.htm&amp;t=MGUxYjczZTRmOTZmMTE2NmE5NDA2MGQ3MWNlZTdkZWU4NjJiOGNiMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the defense of freedoms; the protection of rights and freedoms; maintaining sovereignty; protection from takeover (foreign or domestic)<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> keeping us safe from any danger whatsoever; the protection of individuals from individuals</p> <blockquote><p><b>THE <i>RIGHT</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fbillofr_.htm&amp;t=Njc3NjE5YWJhYTc0M2E2YWVlZjNmNTc0MzQ0NjYzOWJmMWI0ODEyZCxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> full personal entitlement; the freedom; the free ability; the personal decision whether or not to; the God-given, free and clear, dependent only upon existing, choice<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> sometimes, depending upon some people’s opinion, the ability to; the ability to, dependent upon whether or not one is allowed</p> <blockquote><p><b>OF <i>THE PEOPLE</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.1215.org%2Flawnotes%2Flawnotes%2Fpvc.htm&amp;t=MGYzNWJjNjczNWM0MWFjNWQ2YWQ1MjVjMGVlNmE5NjI0ZmE2MGU4ZixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> all legal inhabitants; all citizens of legal age of majority/responsibility<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> some citizens, if they meet certain criteria; those citizens who have certain abilities or characteristics; only those citizens who qualify; citizens who meet certain restrictions or requirements; all citizens except those who do not meet certain qualifications</p> <blockquote><p><b>TO <i>KEEP AND BEAR</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.oxforddictionaries.com%2Fdefinition%2Farms&amp;t=NmU0NWU3MTE2ODQxYjFjOGVhNmY3Mjg3NmYzMTc1NDRiYTc4YjcyMSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> to participate in any actions associated with; to possess and carry and use in any manner; to have; to acquire; to carry on their person or in their conveyance<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> to simply have and carry; to own but have stored elsewhere; to be issued as and when, according to circumstances; to have a limited number of; to own but leave administration of to others; to have but with restrictions</p> <blockquote><p><b><i>ARMS</i></b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guncite.com%2Fgc2ndmea.html&amp;t=NTU2MTExYWRkOGMwMWFlYzczNjNkYWQxOGNmMmZhZDBkZTQ5MjUyYixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> weapons or armament of any kind; offensive or defensive weapons; ordnance; guns, missiles, swords, knives, cannon, explosives; ammunition for weapons; any instrument intended for defense or offense against any person or thing; any item necessary to operate or maintain the above<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> certain kinds of weapons; some but not all defensive implements</p> <blockquote><p><b>SHALL NOT BE</b></p></blockquote> <p><b>MEANS:</b> must never, ever, under any circumstances, be, <i>no matter what</i><br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> should not be; will hopefully not be; can only be under some conditions; can be, if legally restricted; is allowed to be if new laws are created</p> <blockquote><p><b>INFRINGED</b></p></blockquote> <p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2Finfringed&amp;t=NDU0MDA2NjU4MzUwYmQ4MzczZjJkNTEzNDM2ZTUwZTBlYzUzOGQ5ZSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> taken away; restricted in any way; put conditions or requirements upon; diminished; changed or updated; made new laws about; limited in any way; re-legislated; detracted from; invalidated<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> taken away, <i>unless </i>lots of people think it should be; changed, <i>unless </i>opinions change; updated, <i>if</i> people think that’s what they want<br/></p> <p>THEREFORE, were the second amendment written today, it would read:<br/></p> <h2><b>Because a <i>thoroughly hooked up</i> and <i>well-armed</i> <i><u>population</u> </i>is the only way our nation will ever be able to remain free and sovereign, and the only way we will ever keep our precious rights and liberties, <i>every single citizen of this country</i> is freely allowed to <i>possess </i>any <i>firearm or weapon </i>and to <i>use </i>said weapon in any way, and nobody is allowed to ever change, <b>restrict, or limit </b>laws about, or prevent any citizen from owning, keeping, or using <i>any kind of firearm or weapon</i>, even if people <i>think</i> that’s what they want.</b></h2> <p>Just to reiterate the parts that people most often misunderstand:</p> <p><b><i>Well-regulated</i> DOES NOT MEAN strictly governed</b>. It means well <i>outfitted</i>, hooked the fuck up.</p> <p><b><i>Militia </i>DOES NOT MEAN official, state sanctioned, junior or local branch of the federal armed forces</b>. It means citizens with guns, and that’s it. In fact, the Framers did not want a federal- (or state-) run standing military; they saw that as a threat to liberty. It’s very clear that what they meant was THE PEOPLE.</p> <p><b><i>Keep and bear</i> DOES NOT MEAN simply possess and carry</b>. It means participate in any and all associated activities.</p> <p><i><b>Arms </b></i><b>DOES NOT MEAN</b> guns, or certain guns, or guns with certain features. It means <i>weapons</i>, of any kind.</p> <p>Just look these things up, <i>please</i>, or follow the links provided.</p> <p><b>–&gt;</b> And <i>COME ON</i>. Use just a little common sense. If the Second Amendment were written exclusively to arm the military, or police, or officially government sanctioned militias, then WHY would it very explicitly say <b>the right of <i><u>THE PEOPLE</u></i> to keep and bear arms</b>…? Why would these educated, intelligent, careful, and conscientious men make such a stupid contradiction in one of the most important documents they’d ever written? That’s simply ridiculous! They didn’t make any mistakes, and we haven’t been somehow blindly running the country wrong for 230 years. It’s written correctly, and the meaning of it is quite clear if you just read past the first few words. </p> <blockquote><p>The right of <i><b>THE PEOPLE</b></i> to keep and bear <b>arms</b> shall not be infringed.</p></blockquote> <p>That’s unmistakable. Really.<br/><br/></p> <h2><b>AND AS FOR THE <i>ARMS</i> THEMSELVES..</b></h2> <p><b><i>Nowhere </i>does the Second Amendment (written in 1791) say <i>anything </i>about muskets, nor even <i>guns</i>, nor does it mention or even insinuate <i>any</i> limitation on what arms a person can keep and bear.</b></p> <p>Even further, in case you somehow actually didn’t know this, there were basically fully automatic machine guns BEFORE the Second Amendment was written, and <i>yes indeed</i>, these were known and accounted for when the document was drafted.</p> <p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box">Pepper-box revolver</a> from 1790 or earlier</b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/32125f9701fe79560a11c06e34c082c6/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsEla71tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun">Puckle gun</a>, invented in 1718 (complete with relevant text)</b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/47df142ced1c43b4e6f86e8d11595433/tumblr_inline_ozbyg7l6UX1suj1m1_500.png" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock">Belton flintlock rifle</a>, 1777 </b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8509f4782b2214c8fce1d957d98c1243/tumblr_inline_oyyuzs6rzo1tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle">Girandoni air rifle</a>, 1779 </b><br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5e95ac5b5241961bbd16e3ee1fface9c/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsE6yV1tnietr_400.jpg" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"/></figure><p>(Thank you <a>@guns-and-freedom</a>​ for this list.)</p> <p>And that’s only a few of the <i>guns</i>. I haven’t even mentioned all the other kinds of <i><b>ARMS</b></i> that were available <a href="http://www.americanrevolution.org/artillery.php">before the Second Amendment was written</a>, those <b><i>ARMS</i></b> upon which no restriction shall ever be put, according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights:</p> <p><b>MORTARS</b></p> <p>Mortars are projectile launching arms that have been in use since the <b>1400s</b>.</p> <p>By 1775, there were nine different Land Service and four Sea Service Mortars in the British inventory alone.<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/0199ff1c14b01cdb4b9015bbf4b0d335/tumblr_inline_ozbzkpmB9O1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bea14ef96990869cc3a10d2464758a9a/tumblr_inline_ozbzl945Cd1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This <a href="http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/gallery1/clash5_e.shtml">French mortar</a> formed part of the defenses of Louisbourg during the British siege of <b>1758</b>. Made of cast iron, it could propel a 60-kilogram (132lb) shell up to four kilometers (2.5mi):</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/82d4f4a856c85867297a7a84ec060abc/tumblr_inline_ozbznl8zhM1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>That’s just a few examples.</p> <p><b>CANNON</b></p> <p>There are so many cannon, and their history is so rich and deep, that it’s impossible for me to get into it here. You know what a cannon is. Everybody does… so did the Founding Fathers.</p> <p>Cannon were built for offense and for defense, for battle and for siege, for land and for sea. They can be mounted on ships, they can be wheeled on wagons or purpose built conveyances, and they can even (but not often) be hand held. <br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fdcac6069eedd9d058acf1fc14cd21bc/tumblr_inline_ozbzwuANvw1suj1m1_400.jpg" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"/></figure><p>These things are old as dirt. Historians are pretty sure the first one was invented in China in the <b>1100s</b>, and they became standardized and common in Europe as far back as the Middle Ages, though probably much earlier.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6444d2089242cc8c73b1a48c95985fe1/tumblr_inline_ozc0iacKej1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This incredible fort, built in <b>1593</b>, was designed specifically to defend against cannon:<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fe6a18995e8b28ea5492e2877744b659/tumblr_inline_ozc0ozfzgF1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>HOWITZERS</b><br/></p> <p>Speaking of cannon, let’s not forget the Howitzer, which also dates back to the <b>1400s</b> and was used commonly as early as the <b>1600s</b>. It’s somewhere between the weapon commonly referred to as “gun” and a cannon, as it has a shorter barrel, smaller propellant charge, and higher trajectory than the cannon.</p> <p>This beautiful 24lb Howitzer entered service in <b>1790</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ebc2f8c84f50a167d652a29cb9a77bd3/tumblr_inline_ozc3qol80G1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>British and American Howitzers from the Revolutionary War, ca <b>1770s</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/f6fa6e415a99e20eb4874d0a7b656a62/tumblr_inline_ozc3t0itsX1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>BOWS and ARROWS</b><br/></p> <p>Bows, as you surely know, are single-operator, hand held projectile weapons which have been extremely common pretty much <i>forever</i>. They’re basically the bolt-action rifles of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p> <p>The bow and arrow dates back to <b>prehistoric times</b>, and the crossbow dates back to <b>6th century BC</b> in China. Modern, fancy bows are relatively complicated compared to historical bows, but the archers that wielded them were deadly accurate. Until (and even well after) the advent and widespread use of the firearm, bows and arrows - and archers - were absolutely formidable. They’re pretty much the closest thing we can compare in historical battle to the modern gun, in popularity, accuracy, and believe it or not, versatility.<br/></p> <p>Arrows can be loosed more than one at a time. Arrows can be made to explode on impact. Arrows can be loosed on fire. Arrowheads vary widely and have been purpose built for nearly unlimited uses for millennia.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4850d694a016ec830f520d08126d614c/tumblr_inline_ozc44sxQUf1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Arrows can be loosed in rapid succession, quite accurately, and a good archer can loose arrows effectively semi-automatically<b>**</b> with just a modified grip.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/3391db20fa82d59ee94454edd0f82e85/tumblr_inline_ozc23e4yso1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>A good archer can loose arrows nearly as fast as any semi-automatic<b>**</b> firearm, and just as accurately too. <br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-embed tmblr-full" data-provider="youtube" data-orig-width="540" data-orig-height="304" data-url="https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBEG-ly9tQGk"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEG-ly9tQGk?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><p>(But this guy really has <i>nothing </i>on a trained, professional medieval or ancient military archer.) <br/></p> <p><b>CROSSBOWS</b></p> <p>Crossbows are extremely old, as well, and extremely commonplace throughout history. They’re basically the AR-15s of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p> <p>The Chinese outpaced Europeans in this department, as they did in explosives (which I’m not even getting into here!), and had crossbow technology as early as the <b>6th century BC</b>. That’s B.C. - where you count backwards. Europeans have been using them since <i>at least</i> the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and probably much earlier.</p> <p>Crossbows are so fast, can be used so rapidly, and are so accurate and deadly that some armies wanted them outlawed because they were such a terrifying advantage on the field, and they were indeed <a href="http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/">banned from Christian-on-Christian</a> battle by the Pope in 1096. But that didn’t last long.</p> <p>Crossbow bolts vary <i>nearly </i>as widely as arrows, and can do many of the things arrowheads can do (such as cause explosions on impact, etc.), and they can be loosed <i>extremely</i> quickly and <i>very </i>accurately via a crossbow. <br/></p> <p>Here is a DaVinci giant crossbow, as in Leonardo DaVinci, <b>1488-1489</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9adbfc103b34f7af1fb3adbf3cb8e925/tumblr_inline_ozc1zx3Pkx1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>And crossbows even come in semi-automatic**!</b> Here is a hand held semi-automatic<b>**</b> crossbow that can shoot 10 bolts in 15 seconds. It is from the <b><i>4th century BC</i>:</b></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/1e2737d81fd3c6e0474bd87c05773da4/tumblr_inline_ozc28wnJaP1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"/></figure><p>This bronze crossbow lower was <i><b><u>mass produced</u></b></i> as early as the <b>4th century BC</b>:</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ecef8516b2f697a7ca6d1df36697d965/tumblr_inline_ozc3z9FENS1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"/></figure><p><b><br/></b></p> <p><b>—–&gt; **</b>BY THE WAY - <i><b>semi-automatic</b></i> means CAN ONLY FIRE ONE BULLET AT A TIME, <b>one single bullet per pull of the trigger</b>. It <i>does NOT mean</i> a Rambo-style, constant spray, belt fed, machine gun. That Rambo type of gun is NOT semi-automatic, as the news would love for you to believe; that is <i>FULLY automatic</i>. Anything that is <i>FULLY AUTOMATIC - </i>which means you can hold down the trigger and just spray - IS ILLEGAL ALREADY and has been for decades. <i>FAR</i> too many people have no clue what those words mean. <b>&lt;—–</b><br/></p> <p><br/></p> <p>Anyway. The above listed weapons are only the <i>projectile </i><b><i>ARMS</i> </b>that were readily available and widely known well before the Second Amendment was written. I’m not even going to get into melee weapons like swords, axes, hammers, polearms, pikes, maces, caltrops, spears, halberds…….. I’m just not going to start. Nor am I going to get into shit like war ships and armored vehicles and <b>explosives</b> and things like that. But those things are all <b><i>arms</i></b> as well. Every single weapon mentioned here - and <i>any </i>other type of weapon on earth - as well as any <i>ammunition </i>for any of those weapons, is an <i><b>arm</b> </i>and is included in the Second Amendment’s use of the word <i><b>arms</b></i>.<br/></p> <p><b><i>ALL OF THE ABOVE</i> ARE  *A R M S*  THAT WERE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND WELL KNOWN TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.</b></p> <p>And remember, the Second Amendment says <i><b>arms</b></i>, not guns, not muskets, not flintlocks, not anything specific at all. Just arms.</p> <p>The Founding Fathers knew about all of these <i>arms</i>. They understood the evolution and history of warfare and weaponry. They were familiar with all of the weapons, including firearms, of their day. And I would confidently go out on a limb and say that - given how well they predicted the future of government growth, and the willingness of the people to buy politicians’ lines - they understood and expected firearms and weapons technology to advance in much the same way as it has (which is to say… it actually hasn’t really changed all that much). And speaking of the Founding Fathers’ foresight…</p> <h2><b>THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, <i>WAR!</i></b></h2> <p>One of the MAIN reasons for the Second Amendment existing is that the founding fathers didn’t trust the government OR the people. They NEVER intended for there to be a federally-run standing army; they wanted The People to always be ready and able to defend ourselves - from <i>anyone</i>, <strike>including</strike> especially our own government. They <i>knew </i>the government would eventually try to become corrupt, try to enlarge and empower itself, try to take more control than they laid it out to have, just as almost every other government has always done. And they could clearly see <i>the people</i> falling for the lines that government fed them in order to <i>make them believe</i> that giving it more power was a good thing, that taking away <i>our </i>power was a good thing, was what the people wanted, just as almost every other people has always done. They knew <i>exactly </i>what was coming, and they predicted it pretty much flawlessly.. because it always happens. That’s exactly <b>why</b> they wrote the Second Amendment to be perfectly solid. Thank God!</p> <p>THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO EMPOWER PRIVATE CITIZENS TO GO TO <i>WAR </i>WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR WITH ANY OTHER ENEMY THAT MIGHT THREATEN OUR RIGHTS, OUR LIBERTIES, OR OUR SOVEREIGNTY.   <br/></p> <p>Here is just <i>one of the HUNDREDS</i> of extant, and readily available, examples of discourse surrounding the Second Amendment and its drafting, communications from the general public and within the government:</p> <blockquote><p>The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this “<b>the security without which every other is insufficient,</b>” and a century earlier the great jurist, William Blackstone, regarded <b>private arms as the means by which a people might vindicate their other rights</b> if these were suppressed. [<a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fmaltrad.htm&amp;t=MjQ1MjBhMmYwODYzODg0NGYyMGNiOWI4ZDFlNDk3NTEzYjhkZjRjMixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">x</a>]</p></blockquote> <p><b>The Second Amendment is the “emergency, break glass” for if/when the First Amendment stops working or, worse, is taken away.</b><br/></p> <p>It’s not for <i>hunting</i>, it’s not for <i>home defense</i>, it’s not for <i>target practice</i> or <i>sport</i>. It’s so that <b>we </b>can be as well-armed as (or, hopefully, be better armed than) <i>any </i>enemy we may need to fend off, including our own government. It’s there to at least make the government think twice about trying to take away our rights, to let them know that there is an armed populace out there, ready and wiling to defend its freedoms. It’s there to give us a fighting chance at keeping and maintaining the liberty that our forefathers fought and died for, and <i>yes, it includes AK-47s</i>. In fact, it also includes <b>cannon and full auto machine guns and war ships</b> as well, <i>and </i>includes anybody, no matter who, acquiring as many as they want (but we’ve let those rights be infringed anyway).</p> <h2><b>AND ON TOP OF <i>ALL </i>THAT:</b></h2> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d3b5a19358519f2aec51a38e99f186b2/tumblr_inline_ozll8mBKh91suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Your opinion on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is simply factually incorrect, and you yourself can easily verify that, if you’re ever so inclined to understand the truth rather than what <i>feels right </i>to you, by simply following some of the links above or searching for the recorded debates of the Founding Fathers. Hell, you can just search for a list of quotes by the Founding Fathers and gain a much more thorough understanding of their meaning. Please, do <i>yourself</i> the favor of taking a little time to learn about it. The sources are out there and very easy to find.</p> <p>Again, <b>THERE  <i>IS NO DEBATE</i>  ON THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. </b>THAT DEBATE HAPPENED - AND WAS SETTLED - OVER 200 YEARS AGO. AND THEM DUDES WHAT DEBATED IT WROTE DOWN EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THAT DEBATE, AND THOSE WORDS ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO US. THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS IS VERY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE, AND IF YOU JUST FUCKING GOOGLE FOR A SECOND, YOU’LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE MEN WHO WROTE THEM MEANT BY THEM.</p> </blockquote><p>Reblogging for future reference.</p></blockquote> <p>Unless you’re willing to say that the First Amendment is invalid because the founding fathers didn’t know the Internet would exist, shut up about the second amendment being invalid because we have better guns now.</p>
9/11, Being Alone, and America: THIS IS NOT A "WELL-
 REGULATED MILITIA."
 AND THIS IS NOT A MUSKET.
 Times have changed
 Shouldn't our gun laws?
 OCCUPY D
 EMOCRATS
<p><a href="http://schweizerqualit.at/post/169647951974/theheartbrokenlibertarian" class="tumblr_blog">schweizerqualitaet</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://theheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com/post/169639890186/inkedandproudinfidel-proudliberal11-lets" class="tumblr_blog">theheartbrokenlibertarian</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://inkedandproudinfidel.tumblr.com/post/169567922822/proudliberal11-lets-regulate-the-unregulated" class="tumblr_blog">inkedandproudinfidel</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://proudliberal11.tumblr.com/post/169279939060/lets-regulate-the-unregulated-populace" class="tumblr_blog">proudliberal11</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Let’s regulate the unregulated populace!</p></blockquote>

<p>No they shouldn’t…</p>
<p>All those above broke many laws in what they did including the possession of those firearms and it did nothing to save lives. Stop being ignorant…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>OH MY GOSH. THIS SHIT AGAIN?</p>
<p>Okay, I’m bringing this back. Sorry to alla yall who’ve had to sit through this before. But for fuuuuuuuuuuuck’s saaaaaaaaaake people!</p>
<p><br/></p>
<p><b>Where does the Second Amendment say “musket”? Show me where it says musket. In fact, show me where it even says <i>GUNS</i>. Show me where it puts ANY limits on what <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms"><i>arms</i></a> we can keep and bear. Show me the words.</b></p>
<p><b>You cannot; they are not there.</b></p>
<p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mcpMWUpnSYWxH6sA7gfOiUg">@proudliberal11</a> If what you posted is really what you believe - and I do <i>honestly </i>mean this in the nicest possible way - then you are not qualified to speak on the subject of the Second Amendment with any modicum of authority. You can have your own feelings and opinions, <i>of course</i>, but you clearly do not have the <i>facts</i>, and you do not understand the law, its adoption, the reasons behind it, or its intent. If you just want guns gone or want new laws, then simply petition the government to begin the process of repealing the Second Amendment and/or amending the Constitution (good luck with that, though), but <i>please </i>don’t try to change or erase history!</p>
<p><b>There is NO DEBATE on the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment.</b> That was settled and made clear <i>a long time ago</i>, and it has nothing to do with what you think a “militia” is, for one thing, and nothing to do with “muskets” either, for that matter. </p>
<p>The Founding Fathers didn’t just shit out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights overnight or off the top of their heads. They didn’t forget about it until the night before it was due. These things were discussed and debated and researched and proven over the course of <b><i>several </i></b><i><b>months</b></i>, and <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html">those discussions and debates were thoroughly documented</a>. This drafting would have been equivalent to the 9/11 news coverage of the day! It was a BIG DEAL, even then; they knew they were building history. People were watching, recording, discussing everywhere. It’s ALL written down.</p>
<p>The Framers were <i>extremely clear</i> about exactly what they intended, solid evidence of which you can find by studying <a href="http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm">contemporary literature</a> and documentation <a href="https://wallbuilders.com/founders-second-amendment/">surrounding the authoring</a> of the Second Amendment. Letters, speeches, publications, etc., <a href="http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm">written by and to the framers</a>, as well as the public, - which <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Feducation.blogs.archives.gov%2F2016%2F05%2F10%2Fteaching-the-second-amendment%2F&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNH7ovpuftRdhqKahPIpnnED_tmYGA">clearly spell out</a> the full intent of the law, <a href="http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/19adec.pdf">explain the law</a> in simple terms, and give insight into popular and official <a href="https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers">opinion about the law</a> - are still freely available today. I’ve linked a handful, but it’s very easy to find this information, and I encourage - nay, <i>beg </i>- you to seek it out. </p>
<p>Here are just a few examples, though, in case you don’t feel like researching something so extremely important:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>—–&gt; “I ask who are the <i>militia</i>? They consist now of <i>the whole people</i>, except a few public officers.”</b><br/>- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 </p>
<p><b>“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, <i><u>composed of the body of the people</u></i>, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”</b><br/>- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 <br/></p>
<p><b> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 <br/></p>
<p><b>“To preserve liberty, it is essential that <u><i>the whole body of the people</i> always possess <i>arms</i></u>, and be taught alike, <i>especially when young</i>, how to use them.” </b><br/>- Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress<br/></p>
<p><b>“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that <i>their people</i> preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 <br/></p>
<p><b>[On our military superiority over a tyrannical enemy] …This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; <i>every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy</i>.“</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 <br/></p>
<p><b>“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”</b><br/>- George Mason, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788</p>
<p><b>“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; <i><u>because the whole body of the people are armed</u></i>, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”</b><br/>- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That could not be more clear. This “militia” is us. It’s you and me and everyone reading this and everyone else. <b>THE MILITIA IS THE PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS, YOU AND ME.</b></p>
<p>If nothing else, please do take a look at <a href="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html"><b>THIS DOCUMENT</b></a>. It lays out the history and the clear reasoning behind the Founding Fathers’ drafting of the Second Amendment. It is thoroughly sourced, and it is detailed.</p>
<p>As you can see, looking at what is here, juxtaposed with what we have in place today, we have already strayed extremely far from the original intent of the document as well as from the letter of its law - we have already infringed our God-given (and merely government-<i>protected</i>) inalienable rights to hell and back - and we the people are NOT happy to give away another inch, no matter how “mean” you <i>feel</i> icky-o guns may be.</p>
<p>And as for the document itself:<br/><br/></p>
<h2><b>Let me break the Second Amendment down for you.</b></h2>
<p><i>BUT FIRST!</i> Before I get into that, you <i>must u</i>nderstand that <i><b>language is fluid</b></i> and that it changes over the years, that the definitions of words change and adapt all the time. For example, the word “great” used to exclusively mean very large, the word “terrible” used to exclusively mean awe-inspiringly, the word “sick” used to exclusively mean ill, the word “woman” used to exclusively mean adult person born with a vagina, and so on. Therefore, you must look at the words and phrasing from the point of view of 1791, the <i>time it was written</i>, and you can’t apply our current use of language to it, and you must keep that in mind as you read older texts. And just because <i>language changes</i>, that does NOT mean the original intent of words changes, too. Quite the contrary.</p>
<blockquote><p><b>“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to <i>the time when the Constitution was adopted</i>, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, <i>or invented against it</i>, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”</b><br/>- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 <br/></p></blockquote>
<p>ALSO:</p>
<blockquote><p>

<b>Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. <br/></b>– James Madison, on the creation of the Constitution<br/></p></blockquote>
<p>So ok, sit tight, here we go.</p>
<h2><b>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.</b></h2>
<blockquote><p><b>A <i>WELL REGULATED</i></b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fcons%2Fwellregu.htm&amp;t=ODBlNzBjMmRjNjk4OGI5MmVkZjU3YjYzODk0N2YxYjEzYzY4YTRmNSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> hooked up; well outfitted; well provided for; has lots of all the latest and greatest things; well-armed<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> heavily legislated; under intense governmental scrutiny; subject to lots of laws and ordinances</p>
<blockquote><p><b>MILITIA</b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fcs_milit.htm&amp;t=ZjA3NGRjMzQ2YThkZjE2YzE3NWFkMWFiNmYwOGY3ZmQ2Zjg0MTVjMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the populace; a general, unofficial body of those citizens physically able to engage themselves in combat; those of us who have guns; a self organized and self managed group of people gathered for the purposes of defense<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> official, government-sanctioned, -approved, and -run military installment that is slightly less formal than the Armed Forces; a junior or local sub-branch of the federal Armed Forces</p>
<blockquote><p><b>BEING NECESSARY TO</b></p></blockquote>
<p><b>MEANS:</b> is the reason why; is required for; also, the wording here, and the preceding comma, replaces using “because this…” at the beginning of the sentence as we would use it today - it’s just rearranged<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT </i>MEAN:</b> if it becomes needed; only when needed; in times of threat but not otherwise</p>
<blockquote><p><b>THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE</b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Flrev%2Frkba_wayment.htm&amp;t=MGUxYjczZTRmOTZmMTE2NmE5NDA2MGQ3MWNlZTdkZWU4NjJiOGNiMyxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> the defense of freedoms; the protection of rights and freedoms; maintaining sovereignty; protection from takeover (foreign or domestic)<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> keeping us safe from any danger whatsoever; the protection of individuals from individuals</p>
<blockquote><p><b>THE <i>RIGHT</i></b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fbillofr_.htm&amp;t=Njc3NjE5YWJhYTc0M2E2YWVlZjNmNTc0MzQ0NjYzOWJmMWI0ODEyZCxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> full personal entitlement; the freedom; the free ability; the personal decision whether or not to; the God-given, free and clear, dependent only upon existing, choice<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> sometimes, depending upon some people’s opinion, the ability to; the ability to, dependent upon whether or not one is allowed</p>
<blockquote><p><b>OF <i>THE PEOPLE</i></b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.1215.org%2Flawnotes%2Flawnotes%2Fpvc.htm&amp;t=MGYzNWJjNjczNWM0MWFjNWQ2YWQ1MjVjMGVlNmE5NjI0ZmE2MGU4ZixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> all legal inhabitants; all citizens of legal age of majority/responsibility<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> some citizens, if they meet certain criteria; those citizens who have certain abilities or characteristics; only those citizens who qualify; citizens who meet certain restrictions or requirements; all citizens except those who do not meet certain qualifications</p>
<blockquote><p><b>TO <i>KEEP AND BEAR</i></b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.oxforddictionaries.com%2Fdefinition%2Farms&amp;t=NmU0NWU3MTE2ODQxYjFjOGVhNmY3Mjg3NmYzMTc1NDRiYTc4YjcyMSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> to participate in any actions associated with; to possess and carry and use in any manner; to have; to acquire; to carry on their person or in their conveyance<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> to simply have and carry; to own but have stored elsewhere; to be issued as and when, according to circumstances; to have a limited number of; to own but leave administration of to others; to have but with restrictions</p>
<blockquote><p><b><i>ARMS</i></b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guncite.com%2Fgc2ndmea.html&amp;t=NTU2MTExYWRkOGMwMWFlYzczNjNkYWQxOGNmMmZhZDBkZTQ5MjUyYixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> weapons or armament of any kind; offensive or defensive weapons; ordnance; guns, missiles, swords, knives, cannon, explosives; ammunition for weapons; any instrument intended for defense or offense against any person or thing; any item necessary to operate or maintain the above<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> certain kinds of weapons; some but not all defensive implements</p>
<blockquote><p><b>SHALL NOT BE</b></p></blockquote>
<p><b>MEANS:</b> must never, ever, under any circumstances, be, <i>no matter what</i><br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> should not be; will hopefully not be; can only be under some conditions; can be, if legally restricted; is allowed to be if new laws are created</p>
<blockquote><p><b>INFRINGED</b></p></blockquote>
<p><b><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2Finfringed&amp;t=NDU0MDA2NjU4MzUwYmQ4MzczZjJkNTEzNDM2ZTUwZTBlYzUzOGQ5ZSxGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">MEANS</a>:</b> taken away; restricted in any way; put conditions or requirements upon; diminished; changed or updated; made new laws about; limited in any way; re-legislated; detracted from; invalidated<br/><b>DOES <i>NOT</i> MEAN:</b> taken away, <i>unless </i>lots of people think it should be; changed, <i>unless </i>opinions change; updated, <i>if</i> people think that’s what they want<br/></p>
<p>THEREFORE, were the second amendment written today, it would read:<br/></p>
<h2><b>Because a <i>thoroughly hooked up</i> and <i>well-armed</i> <i><u>population</u> </i>is the only way our nation will ever be able to remain free and sovereign, and the only way we will ever keep our precious rights and liberties, <i>every single citizen of this country</i> is freely allowed to <i>possess </i>any <i>firearm or weapon </i>and to <i>use </i>said weapon in any way, and nobody is allowed to ever change, <b>restrict, or limit </b>laws about, or prevent any citizen from owning, keeping, or using <i>any kind of firearm or weapon</i>, even if people <i>think</i> that’s what they want.</b></h2>
<p>Just to reiterate the parts that people most often misunderstand:</p>
<p><b><i>Well-regulated</i> DOES NOT MEAN strictly governed</b>. It means well <i>outfitted</i>, hooked the fuck up.</p>
<p><b><i>Militia </i>DOES NOT MEAN official, state sanctioned, junior or local branch of the federal armed forces</b>. It means citizens with guns, and that’s it. In fact, the Framers did not want a federal- (or state-) run standing military; they saw that as a threat to liberty. It’s very clear that what they meant was THE PEOPLE.</p>
<p><b><i>Keep and bear</i> DOES NOT MEAN simply possess and carry</b>. It means participate in any and all associated activities.</p>
<p><i><b>Arms </b></i><b>DOES NOT MEAN</b> guns, or certain guns, or guns with certain features. It means <i>weapons</i>, of any kind.</p>
<p>Just look these things up, <i>please</i>, or follow the links provided.</p>
<p><b>–&gt;</b> And <i>COME ON</i>. Use just a little common sense. If the Second Amendment were written exclusively to arm the military, or police, or officially government sanctioned militias, then WHY would it very explicitly say <b>the right of <i><u>THE PEOPLE</u></i> to keep and bear arms</b>…? Why would these educated, intelligent, careful, and conscientious men make such a stupid contradiction in one of the most important documents they’d ever written? That’s simply ridiculous! They didn’t make any mistakes, and we haven’t been somehow blindly running the country wrong for 230 years. It’s written correctly, and the meaning of it is quite clear if you just read past the first few words. </p>
<blockquote><p>The right of <i><b>THE PEOPLE</b></i> to keep and bear <b>arms</b> shall not be infringed.</p></blockquote>
<p>That’s unmistakable. Really.<br/><br/></p>
<h2><b>AND AS FOR THE <i>ARMS</i> THEMSELVES..</b></h2>
<p><b><i>Nowhere </i>does the Second Amendment (written in 1791) say <i>anything </i>about muskets, nor even <i>guns</i>, nor does it mention or even insinuate <i>any</i> limitation on what arms a person can keep and bear.</b></p>
<p>Even further, in case you somehow actually didn’t know this, there were basically fully automatic machine guns BEFORE the Second Amendment was written, and <i>yes indeed</i>, these were known and accounted for when the document was drafted.</p>
<p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box">Pepper-box revolver</a> from 1790 or earlier</b><br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/32125f9701fe79560a11c06e34c082c6/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsEla71tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="440"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun">Puckle gun</a>, invented in 1718 (complete with relevant text)</b><br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/47df142ced1c43b4e6f86e8d11595433/tumblr_inline_ozbyg7l6UX1suj1m1_500.png" data-orig-height="392" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock">Belton flintlock rifle</a>, 1777 </b><br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8509f4782b2214c8fce1d957d98c1243/tumblr_inline_oyyuzs6rzo1tnietr_500.jpg" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle">Girandoni air rifle</a>, 1779 </b><br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5e95ac5b5241961bbd16e3ee1fface9c/tumblr_inline_oyyuzsE6yV1tnietr_400.jpg" data-orig-height="173" data-orig-width="300"/></figure><p>(Thank you <a>@guns-and-freedom</a>​ for this list.)</p>
<p>And that’s only a few of the <i>guns</i>. I haven’t even mentioned all the other kinds of <i><b>ARMS</b></i> that were available <a href="http://www.americanrevolution.org/artillery.php">before the Second Amendment was written</a>, those <b><i>ARMS</i></b> upon which no restriction shall ever be put, according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights:</p>
<p><b>MORTARS</b></p>
<p>Mortars are projectile launching arms that have been in use since the <b>1400s</b>.</p>
<p>By 1775, there were nine different Land Service and four Sea Service Mortars in the British inventory alone.<br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/0199ff1c14b01cdb4b9015bbf4b0d335/tumblr_inline_ozbzkpmB9O1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="346" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bea14ef96990869cc3a10d2464758a9a/tumblr_inline_ozbzl945Cd1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="221" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This <a href="http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/gallery1/clash5_e.shtml">French mortar</a> formed part of the defenses of Louisbourg during the British siege of <b>1758</b>. Made of cast iron, it could propel a 60-kilogram (132lb) shell up to four kilometers (2.5mi):</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/82d4f4a856c85867297a7a84ec060abc/tumblr_inline_ozbznl8zhM1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="283" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>That’s just a few examples.</p>
<p><b>CANNON</b></p>
<p>There are so many cannon, and their history is so rich and deep, that it’s impossible for me to get into it here. You know what a cannon is. Everybody does… so did the Founding Fathers.</p>
<p>Cannon were built for offense and for defense, for battle and for siege, for land and for sea. They can be mounted on ships, they can be wheeled on wagons or purpose built conveyances, and they can even (but not often) be hand held. <br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fdcac6069eedd9d058acf1fc14cd21bc/tumblr_inline_ozbzwuANvw1suj1m1_400.jpg" data-orig-height="257" data-orig-width="344"/></figure><p>These things are old as dirt. Historians are pretty sure the first one was invented in China in the <b>1100s</b>, and they became standardized and common in Europe as far back as the Middle Ages, though probably much earlier.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6444d2089242cc8c73b1a48c95985fe1/tumblr_inline_ozc0iacKej1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>This incredible fort, built in <b>1593</b>, was designed specifically to defend against cannon:<br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/fe6a18995e8b28ea5492e2877744b659/tumblr_inline_ozc0ozfzgF1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="371" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>HOWITZERS</b><br/></p>
<p>Speaking of cannon, let’s not forget the Howitzer, which also dates back to the <b>1400s</b> and was used commonly as early as the <b>1600s</b>. It’s somewhere between the weapon commonly referred to as “gun” and a cannon, as it has a shorter barrel, smaller propellant charge, and higher trajectory than the cannon.</p>
<p>This beautiful 24lb Howitzer entered service in <b>1790</b>:</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ebc2f8c84f50a167d652a29cb9a77bd3/tumblr_inline_ozc3qol80G1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="357" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>British and American Howitzers from the Revolutionary War, ca <b>1770s</b>:</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/f6fa6e415a99e20eb4874d0a7b656a62/tumblr_inline_ozc3t0itsX1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="385" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>BOWS and ARROWS</b><br/></p>
<p>Bows, as you surely know, are single-operator, hand held projectile weapons which have been extremely common pretty much <i>forever</i>. They’re basically the bolt-action rifles of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p>
<p>The bow and arrow dates back to <b>prehistoric times</b>, and the crossbow dates back to <b>6th century BC</b> in China. Modern, fancy bows are relatively complicated compared to historical bows, but the archers that wielded them were deadly accurate. Until (and even well after) the advent and widespread use of the firearm, bows and arrows - and archers - were absolutely formidable. They’re pretty much the closest thing we can compare in historical battle to the modern gun, in popularity, accuracy, and believe it or not, versatility.<br/></p>
<p>Arrows can be loosed more than one at a time. Arrows can be made to explode on impact. Arrows can be loosed on fire. Arrowheads vary widely and have been purpose built for nearly unlimited uses for millennia.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4850d694a016ec830f520d08126d614c/tumblr_inline_ozc44sxQUf1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="358" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Arrows can be loosed in rapid succession, quite accurately, and a good archer can loose arrows effectively semi-automatically<b>**</b> with just a modified grip.</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/3391db20fa82d59ee94454edd0f82e85/tumblr_inline_ozc23e4yso1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="333" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>A good archer can loose arrows nearly as fast as any semi-automatic<b>**</b> firearm, and just as accurately too. <br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-embed tmblr-full" data-provider="youtube" data-orig-width="540" data-orig-height="304" data-url="https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBEG-ly9tQGk"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEG-ly9tQGk?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure><p>(But this guy really has <i>nothing </i>on a trained, professional medieval or ancient military archer.) <br/></p>
<p><b>CROSSBOWS</b></p>
<p>Crossbows are extremely old, as well, and extremely commonplace throughout history. They’re basically the AR-15s of the last <i>few thousand years</i>.</p>
<p>The Chinese outpaced Europeans in this department, as they did in explosives (which I’m not even getting into here!), and had crossbow technology as early as the <b>6th century BC</b>. That’s B.C. - where you count backwards. Europeans have been using them since <i>at least</i> the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and probably much earlier.</p>
<p>Crossbows are so fast, can be used so rapidly, and are so accurate and deadly that some armies wanted them outlawed because they were such a terrifying advantage on the field, and they were indeed <a href="http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medieval-wmd/">banned from Christian-on-Christian</a> battle by the Pope in 1096. But that didn’t last long.</p>
<p>Crossbow bolts vary <i>nearly </i>as widely as arrows, and can do many of the things arrowheads can do (such as cause explosions on impact, etc.), and they can be loosed <i>extremely</i> quickly and <i>very </i>accurately via a crossbow. <br/></p>
<p>Here is a DaVinci giant crossbow, as in Leonardo DaVinci, <b>1488-1489</b>:</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9adbfc103b34f7af1fb3adbf3cb8e925/tumblr_inline_ozc1zx3Pkx1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="368" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p><b>And crossbows even come in semi-automatic**!</b> Here is a hand held semi-automatic<b>**</b> crossbow that can shoot 10 bolts in 15 seconds. It is from the <b><i>4th century BC</i>:</b></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/1e2737d81fd3c6e0474bd87c05773da4/tumblr_inline_ozc28wnJaP1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="163" data-orig-width="417"/></figure><p>This bronze crossbow lower was <i><b><u>mass produced</u></b></i> as early as the <b>4th century BC</b>:</p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ecef8516b2f697a7ca6d1df36697d965/tumblr_inline_ozc3z9FENS1suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="324" data-orig-width="432"/></figure><p><b><br/></b></p>
<p><b>—–&gt; **</b>BY THE WAY - <i><b>semi-automatic</b></i> means CAN ONLY FIRE ONE BULLET AT A TIME, <b>one single bullet per pull of the trigger</b>. It <i>does NOT mean</i> a Rambo-style, constant spray, belt fed, machine gun. That Rambo type of gun is NOT semi-automatic, as the news would love for you to believe; that is <i>FULLY automatic</i>. Anything that is <i>FULLY AUTOMATIC - </i>which means you can hold down the trigger and just spray - IS ILLEGAL ALREADY and has been for decades. <i>FAR</i> too many people have no clue what those words mean. <b>&lt;—–</b><br/></p>
<p><br/></p>
<p>Anyway. The above listed weapons are only the <i>projectile </i><b><i>ARMS</i> </b>that were readily available and widely known well before the Second Amendment was written. I’m not even going to get into melee weapons like swords, axes, hammers, polearms, pikes, maces, caltrops, spears, halberds…….. I’m just not going to start. Nor am I going to get into shit like war ships and armored vehicles and <b>explosives</b> and things like that. But those things are all <b><i>arms</i></b> as well. Every single weapon mentioned here - and <i>any </i>other type of weapon on earth - as well as any <i>ammunition </i>for any of those weapons, is an <i><b>arm</b> </i>and is included in the Second Amendment’s use of the word <i><b>arms</b></i>.<br/></p>
<p><b><i>ALL OF THE ABOVE</i> ARE  *A R M S*  THAT WERE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND WELL KNOWN TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS.</b></p>
<p>And remember, the Second Amendment says <i><b>arms</b></i>, not guns, not muskets, not flintlocks, not anything specific at all. Just arms.</p>
<p>The Founding Fathers knew about all of these <i>arms</i>. They understood the evolution and history of warfare and weaponry. They were familiar with all of the weapons, including firearms, of their day. And I would confidently go out on a limb and say that - given how well they predicted the future of government growth, and the willingness of the people to buy politicians’ lines - they understood and expected firearms and weapons technology to advance in much the same way as it has (which is to say… it actually hasn’t really changed all that much). And speaking of the Founding Fathers’ foresight…</p>
<h2><b>THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, <i>WAR!</i></b></h2>
<p>One of the MAIN reasons for the Second Amendment existing is that the founding fathers didn’t trust the government OR the people. They NEVER intended for there to be a federally-run standing army; they wanted The People to always be ready and able to defend ourselves - from <i>anyone</i>, <strike>including</strike> especially our own government. They <i>knew </i>the government would eventually try to become corrupt, try to enlarge and empower itself, try to take more control than they laid it out to have, just as almost every other government has always done. And they could clearly see <i>the people</i> falling for the lines that government fed them in order to <i>make them believe</i> that giving it more power was a good thing, that taking away <i>our </i>power was a good thing, was what the people wanted, just as almost every other people has always done. They knew <i>exactly </i>what was coming, and they predicted it pretty much flawlessly.. because it always happens. That’s exactly <b>why</b> they wrote the Second Amendment to be perfectly solid. Thank God!</p>
<p>THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO EMPOWER PRIVATE CITIZENS TO GO TO <i>WAR </i>WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR WITH ANY OTHER ENEMY THAT MIGHT THREATEN OUR RIGHTS, OUR LIBERTIES, OR OUR SOVEREIGNTY.   <br/></p>
<p>Here is just <i>one of the HUNDREDS</i> of extant, and readily available, examples of discourse surrounding the Second Amendment and its drafting, communications from the general public and within the government:</p>
<blockquote><p>The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this “<b>the security without which every other is insufficient,</b>” and a century earlier the great jurist, William Blackstone, regarded <b>private arms as the means by which a people might vindicate their other rights</b> if these were suppressed. [<a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.constitution.org%2Fmil%2Fmaltrad.htm&amp;t=MjQ1MjBhMmYwODYzODg0NGYyMGNiOWI4ZDFlNDk3NTEzYjhkZjRjMixGN2JTdzltTg%3D%3D&amp;b=t%3ApSGGrWU9DzQQaxySKrEZGw&amp;p=https%3A%2F%2Ftheheartbrokenlibertarian.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F167250537641%2Fshadows-ember-saltrat88-argangbang&amp;m=1">x</a>]</p></blockquote>
<p><b>The Second Amendment is the “emergency, break glass” for if/when the First Amendment stops working or, worse, is taken away.</b><br/></p>
<p>It’s not for <i>hunting</i>, it’s not for <i>home defense</i>, it’s not for <i>target practice</i> or <i>sport</i>. It’s so that <b>we </b>can be as well-armed as (or, hopefully, be better armed than) <i>any </i>enemy we may need to fend off, including our own government. It’s there to at least make the government think twice about trying to take away our rights, to let them know that there is an armed populace out there, ready and wiling to defend its freedoms. It’s there to give us a fighting chance at keeping and maintaining the liberty that our forefathers fought and died for, and <i>yes, it includes AK-47s</i>. In fact, it also includes <b>cannon and full auto machine guns and war ships</b> as well, <i>and </i>includes anybody, no matter who, acquiring as many as they want (but we’ve let those rights be infringed anyway).</p>
<h2><b>AND ON TOP OF <i>ALL </i>THAT:</b></h2>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d3b5a19358519f2aec51a38e99f186b2/tumblr_inline_ozll8mBKh91suj1m1_500.jpg" data-orig-height="558" data-orig-width="500"/></figure><p>Your opinion on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is simply factually incorrect, and you yourself can easily verify that, if you’re ever so inclined to understand the truth rather than what <i>feels right </i>to you, by simply following some of the links above or searching for the recorded debates of the Founding Fathers. Hell, you can just search for a list of quotes by the Founding Fathers and gain a much more thorough understanding of their meaning. Please, do <i>yourself</i> the favor of taking a little time to learn about it. The sources are out there and very easy to find.</p>
<p>Again, <b>THERE  <i>IS NO DEBATE</i>  ON THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. </b>THAT DEBATE HAPPENED - AND WAS SETTLED - OVER 200 YEARS AGO. AND THEM DUDES WHAT DEBATED IT WROTE DOWN EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THAT DEBATE, AND THOSE WORDS ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO US. THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS IS VERY CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE, AND IF YOU JUST FUCKING GOOGLE FOR A SECOND, YOU’LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE MEN WHO WROTE THEM MEANT BY THEM.</p>
</blockquote><p>Reblogging for future reference.</p></blockquote>

<p>Unless you’re willing to say that the First Amendment is invalid because the founding fathers didn’t know the Internet would exist, shut up about the second amendment being invalid because we have better guns now.</p>

schweizerqualitaet: theheartbrokenlibertarian: inkedandproudinfidel: proudliberal11: Let’s regulate the unregulated populace! No they sh...

Community, Lgbt, and Pope Francis: Founded in 1913, he ref uge andculttr center at the onset of the modernlesbian,gay bisexual, and trans- gender LGBT civii rights movement. The store provided resources to those working to gain legal rights for VBT people. PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMSSION 20172 ELIX GAT GAYDAR GAY'S THE WORD ing eting LESBIAN & GAY BOOKSHOP ADAM HASLETT UNION ATLANTIC NEw Sexualiry Srudies atrick THE POPE is SHAME WHITE COLM TOi DARK TIME HE TRIB LIVING IT OUT OUT OF THE CLIFT metropolitan lovers ueer ives Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. RECOCK LH. GLAD DAY bookshop ACT INFORMATION adayinthelesbianlife: “The LGBT community, however loved/accepted/tolerated, will always be a minority. Our newfound sociopolitical liberties, instead of obliterating the need for a distinctive gay culture, should instead give us license to explore that culture and develop it further. We need gay bookstores, not as sanctuaries for the repressed, but as museums and libraries for the out and proud. As David M. Halperin points out in his book How to Be Gay, “Unlike the members of minority groups defined by race or ethnicity or religion, gays cannot rely on their birth families to teach them about their history or their culture. They must discover their roots through contact with the larger society and the larger world.” - Why we still need LGBT bookstores, by Daniel Lefferts
Community, Lgbt, and Pope Francis: Founded in 1913, he
 ref uge andculttr
 center at the onset of
 the modernlesbian,gay
 bisexual, and trans-
 gender LGBT civii
 rights movement. The
 store provided resources
 to those working to gain
 legal rights for VBT
 people.
 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMSSION 20172

 ELIX GAT
 GAYDAR

 GAY'S THE WORD
 ing
 eting
 LESBIAN & GAY BOOKSHOP

 ADAM HASLETT
 UNION
 ATLANTIC
 NEw Sexualiry Srudies
 atrick
 THE
 POPE
 is
 SHAME
 WHITE
 COLM TOi
 DARK TIME
 HE TRIB
 LIVING IT OUT
 OUT OF THE
 CLIFT
 metropolitan
 lovers
 ueer
 ives
 Sarcasm is just one more
 service we offer.

 RECOCK
 LH.
 GLAD
 DAY
 bookshop
 ACT
 INFORMATION
adayinthelesbianlife:

“The LGBT community, however loved/accepted/tolerated, will always be a minority. Our newfound sociopolitical liberties, instead of obliterating the need for a distinctive gay culture, should instead give us license to explore that culture and develop it further. We need gay bookstores, not as sanctuaries for the repressed, but as museums and libraries for the out and proud. As David M. Halperin points out in his book How to Be Gay, “Unlike the members of minority groups defined by race or ethnicity or religion, gays cannot rely on their birth families to teach them about their history or their culture. They must discover their roots through contact with the larger society and the larger world.” 
- Why we still need LGBT bookstores, by Daniel Lefferts

adayinthelesbianlife: “The LGBT community, however loved/accepted/tolerated, will always be a minority. Our newfound sociopolitical liberti...

Life, Lol, and Movies: <p><a href="https://patron-saint-of-smart-asses.tumblr.com/post/162059707614/naomielizabeth96-gods-little-punk" class="tumblr_blog">patron-saint-of-smart-asses</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://naomielizabeth96.tumblr.com/post/162046803765/gods-little-punk-chythehypeman" class="tumblr_blog">naomielizabeth96</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://gods-little-punk.tumblr.com/post/160555459873/chythehypeman-sarcasticjazz25" class="tumblr_blog">gods-little-punk</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://chythehypeman.tumblr.com/post/146146768522/sarcasticjazz25-thatonceandfutureprat" class="tumblr_blog">chythehypeman</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://sarcasticjazz25.tumblr.com/post/146142975419/thatonceandfutureprat-onemerryjester" class="tumblr_blog">sarcasticjazz25</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thatonceandfutureprat.tumblr.com/post/138409883450">thatonceandfutureprat</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://onemerryjester.tumblr.com/post/113208001505">onemerryjester</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://gooseweasel.tumblr.com/post/104544672422">gooseweasel</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://animatedmoviesandfacts.tumblr.com/post/65979548183">animatedmoviesandfacts</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The production team for <i>The Prince of Egypt</i> conferred with roughly 600 religious experts to make the film as accurate as possible.</p> </blockquote> <p>I’m pretty sure I heard somewhere that <i>The </i><i>Prince of Egypt</i> is actually the only Exodus-inspired movie to get approval from leaders of all three of the major religions that share the story- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well damn</p> </blockquote> <p>From Wikipedia:</p> <p><i>“Because DreamWorks was concerned about theological accuracy, Jeffrey Katzenberg decided to call in <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBiblical_studies&amp;t=Nzc3Nzg2MDFjYzgyNWExMDEwN2MyZGE1Mzk4YWFkODgxMzI3MDI5NyxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Biblical studies">Biblical scholars</a>, <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FChristian&amp;t=OWJhNWQ5MjYzNTRmY2QyZmM3OGE4MjcxOWIxMGFkYjk5YWEwNWY1MSxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Christian">Christian</a>, <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJewish&amp;t=NjcwMGJlYWJmNGZhMzdlNzM0MzIwNjEzMGZlNGRjYmY1NjM5N2JmNixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Jewish">Jewish</a> and <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMuslim&amp;t=ZDE1OWMwYjUzZjg3MTUzYTUwMTIyOGQyNTE3NGIzNjZkNGE5MTlhNixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Muslim">Muslim</a> <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheology&amp;t=NDY1MDIyMWUxMzJjMjYxNmUxMjU0ODE0N2E3ZjZjZWFmOTQ0NTRkMixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Theology">theologians</a>, and <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArab_American&amp;t=N2MwOGQyYjUwMzIwMTdjNjlmYzZiOGYwYmUxZjRiNWE1MzI1NWU4MixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Arab American">Arab American</a> leaders to help his film be more accurate and faithful to the original <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Exodus&amp;t=NWQ2NWQ4ODMxNDQxOGQ4ZWEwNDhmYTE3MTQ4YjMwYjQ4YjRjMTBmMCxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="The Exodus">story</a>. After previewing the developing film, all these leaders noted that the studio executives listened and responded to their ideas, and praised the studio for reaching out for comment from outside sources.<sup><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Prince_of_Egypt%23cite_note-Production3-6&amp;t=NmIwNGIzYTIwNWE0MWM5NDM5ZjcwODUxYWQ4OGY3NmZlNDJkMzU1ZCxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D">[6]”</a></sup></i><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Take notes Hollywood</p> </blockquote> <p>one of the greatest movies of all time &amp; one of my personal faves, act like you know!!!!</p> </blockquote> <p>Reason #243481947 why this is an incredible movie.</p> </blockquote> <p>Waaaaiiit<br/>I Used to always watch this as a kid and I thought I remembered there being a few inaccuracies , for example in the movie Pharaoh’s wife found Moses when in reality it was his daughter? Also I don’t remember the movie portraying the truth of how involved Moses’s birth mother was in his life. It shows that his older sister watched his basket run down the river, but once he’s found she just sings a little song then sneaks off, but I remember reading that she actually goes up to whoever finds him and tells them everything.<br/>It was years ago though so it’s not unlikely I’m remembering it all wrong. </p> <p>Also, kinda lolling at the production team for talking to all those different religious leaders when all they had to do was open up the Bible and read it for themselves.</p> </blockquote> <p>The problem with reading it for themselves, is that they did not have the education that historians, clergy, and language experts have in interpreting the verses. They probably wanted to be sure they didn’t make any mistakes that would have offended believers, or make the story look scientifically based instead of spiritually inspired. (Plus, just look at all those denominations that are “bible-based” yet interpret the Scripture differently from one another…not exactly an effective approach lol)<br/></p><p>As for those inaccuracies, the beginning of the movie starts with them saying they respected the source material while also taking artistic liberties to make it fit into a modern day story format (thus asking the audience to keep that in mind while watching) The changes they made were for adding tension and characterization into a story.</p><p>I actually used to have a story book based on this movie, and questions at the end discussed the similarities and differences between the book of Exodus and the movie, which I thought was pretty neat. <br/></p></blockquote> <p>I&rsquo;m just stopping to happily imagine Christians Jews and Muslims putting aside their differences to have a Prince of Egypt viewing party.</p>
Life, Lol, and Movies: <p><a href="https://patron-saint-of-smart-asses.tumblr.com/post/162059707614/naomielizabeth96-gods-little-punk" class="tumblr_blog">patron-saint-of-smart-asses</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://naomielizabeth96.tumblr.com/post/162046803765/gods-little-punk-chythehypeman" class="tumblr_blog">naomielizabeth96</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://gods-little-punk.tumblr.com/post/160555459873/chythehypeman-sarcasticjazz25" class="tumblr_blog">gods-little-punk</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://chythehypeman.tumblr.com/post/146146768522/sarcasticjazz25-thatonceandfutureprat" class="tumblr_blog">chythehypeman</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://sarcasticjazz25.tumblr.com/post/146142975419/thatonceandfutureprat-onemerryjester" class="tumblr_blog">sarcasticjazz25</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thatonceandfutureprat.tumblr.com/post/138409883450">thatonceandfutureprat</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://onemerryjester.tumblr.com/post/113208001505">onemerryjester</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://gooseweasel.tumblr.com/post/104544672422">gooseweasel</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://animatedmoviesandfacts.tumblr.com/post/65979548183">animatedmoviesandfacts</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The production team for <i>The Prince of Egypt</i> conferred with roughly 600 religious experts to make the film as accurate as possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I’m pretty sure I heard somewhere that <i>The </i><i>Prince of Egypt</i> is actually the only Exodus-inspired movie to get approval from leaders of all three of the major religions that share the story- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well damn</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From Wikipedia:</p>
<p><i>“Because DreamWorks was concerned about theological accuracy, Jeffrey Katzenberg decided to call in <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBiblical_studies&amp;t=Nzc3Nzg2MDFjYzgyNWExMDEwN2MyZGE1Mzk4YWFkODgxMzI3MDI5NyxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Biblical studies">Biblical scholars</a>, <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FChristian&amp;t=OWJhNWQ5MjYzNTRmY2QyZmM3OGE4MjcxOWIxMGFkYjk5YWEwNWY1MSxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Christian">Christian</a>, <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJewish&amp;t=NjcwMGJlYWJmNGZhMzdlNzM0MzIwNjEzMGZlNGRjYmY1NjM5N2JmNixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Jewish">Jewish</a> and <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMuslim&amp;t=ZDE1OWMwYjUzZjg3MTUzYTUwMTIyOGQyNTE3NGIzNjZkNGE5MTlhNixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Muslim">Muslim</a> <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheology&amp;t=NDY1MDIyMWUxMzJjMjYxNmUxMjU0ODE0N2E3ZjZjZWFmOTQ0NTRkMixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Theology">theologians</a>, and <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArab_American&amp;t=N2MwOGQyYjUwMzIwMTdjNjlmYzZiOGYwYmUxZjRiNWE1MzI1NWU4MixYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="Arab American">Arab American</a> leaders to help his film be more accurate and faithful to the original <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Exodus&amp;t=NWQ2NWQ4ODMxNDQxOGQ4ZWEwNDhmYTE3MTQ4YjMwYjQ4YjRjMTBmMCxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D" title="The Exodus">story</a>. After previewing the developing film, all these leaders noted that the studio executives listened and responded to their ideas, and praised the studio for reaching out for comment from outside sources.<sup><a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Prince_of_Egypt%23cite_note-Production3-6&amp;t=NmIwNGIzYTIwNWE0MWM5NDM5ZjcwODUxYWQ4OGY3NmZlNDJkMzU1ZCxYc25UOGQ0Rg%3D%3D">[6]”</a></sup></i><br/></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Take notes Hollywood</p>
</blockquote>

<p>one of the greatest movies of all time &amp; one of my personal faves, act like you know!!!!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Reason #243481947 why this is an incredible movie.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Waaaaiiit<br/>I Used to always watch this as a kid and I thought I remembered there being a few inaccuracies , for example in the movie Pharaoh’s wife found Moses when in reality it was his daughter? Also I don’t remember the movie portraying the truth of how involved Moses’s birth mother was in his life. It shows that his older sister watched his basket run down the river, but once he’s found she just sings a little song then sneaks off, but I remember reading that she actually goes up to whoever finds him and tells them everything.<br/>It was years ago though so it’s not unlikely I’m remembering it all wrong. </p>
<p>Also, kinda lolling at the production team for talking to all those different religious leaders when all they had to do was open up the Bible and read it for themselves.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem with reading it for themselves, is that they did not have the education that historians, clergy, and language experts have in interpreting the verses. They probably wanted to be sure they didn’t make any mistakes that would have offended believers, or make the story look scientifically based instead of spiritually inspired. (Plus, just look at all those denominations that are “bible-based” yet interpret the Scripture differently from one another…not exactly an effective approach lol)<br/></p><p>As for those inaccuracies, the beginning of the movie starts with them saying they respected the source material while also taking artistic liberties to make it fit into a modern day story format (thus asking the audience to keep that in mind while watching) The changes they made were for adding tension and characterization into a story.</p><p>I actually used to have a story book based on this movie, and questions at the end discussed the similarities and differences between the book of Exodus and the movie, which I thought was pretty neat. <br/></p></blockquote>

<p>I&rsquo;m just stopping to happily imagine Christians Jews and Muslims putting aside their differences to have a Prince of Egypt viewing party.</p>

patron-saint-of-smart-asses: naomielizabeth96: gods-little-punk: chythehypeman: sarcasticjazz25: thatonceandfutureprat: onemerryjeste...

Latinos, Period, and School: WE SERVE WHITE' NO /PANISHet MEXICANS tired @highkeychildish -30m Hispanic/Latinx struggle during Jim Crow, should be talked about more わ t. 218 ★155 tired @highkeychildish 12m well 17 2616 298 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review [Vol. 44 history that the sudden reappearance of the noose at Jena High was so jar- ring, and its intent so unmistakable ans? Jews? Gypsies? Prob not carry the same impac blacks. Other symbols-a "kikes-might, but not a with this one group alonc. its malevolent historv.? To whom else would a noose carry the same meaning Gays and lesbi the symbol may be, t does se groups thatt does for r an epithet like ag" or s linked in the public mind Copy or bet w unc, blacks own the symbol an d Yet, that seening singularity invites farther examination. for example recent research by reputable historians shows that Latinos, particularly Mex ican Americans in the Southwest, were lynched in large numbers during roughly the same period when lynching of blacks ran rampant. Few people know this. Every school child knows that blacks suffered that fate. Why do so few know about the lynching of Latinos This Essay wi attempt to answer that question. Part II reviews the hist of Latino lynching. Part III explains why it is so little known. Part IV suggests that English-Only move- ments are a present-day form of lynching for Latinos.9 The Essay concludes by urging that scholars broaden their search for mechanisms for nonblack tired @highkeychildish 12m [TW Latinxs were also lynched in large numbers during the Jim Crow Era as 17 2616
Latinos, Period, and School: WE SERVE
 WHITE'
 NO
 /PANISHet MEXICANS
 tired @highkeychildish -30m
 Hispanic/Latinx struggle during Jim Crow, should be talked about
 more
 わ
 t. 218
 ★155

 tired @highkeychildish 12m
 well
 17 2616

 298
 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
 [Vol. 44
 history that the sudden reappearance of the noose at Jena High was so jar-
 ring, and its intent so unmistakable
 ans? Jews? Gypsies? Prob
 not carry the same impac
 blacks. Other symbols-a
 "kikes-might, but not a
 with this one group alonc.
 its malevolent historv.?
 To whom else would a noose carry the same meaning Gays and lesbi
 the symbol may be, t does
 se groups thatt does for
 r an epithet like ag" or
 s linked in the public mind
 Copy
 or bet
 w
 unc, blacks own the symbol an
 d
 Yet, that seening singularity invites farther examination. for example
 recent research by reputable historians shows that Latinos, particularly Mex
 ican Americans in the Southwest, were lynched in large numbers during
 roughly the same period when lynching of blacks ran rampant. Few people
 know this. Every school child knows that blacks suffered that fate. Why do
 so few know about the lynching of Latinos This Essay wi attempt to
 answer that question. Part II reviews the hist of Latino lynching. Part III
 explains why it is so little known. Part IV suggests that English-Only move-
 ments are a present-day form of lynching for Latinos.9 The Essay concludes
 by urging that scholars broaden their search for mechanisms for nonblack
 tired @highkeychildish 12m
 [TW Latinxs were also lynched in large numbers during the Jim Crow Era as
 17 2616
Advice, America, and Children: Shakira 14 mins . The recent ban on Muslims entering the U.S. proposed by Donald Trump and currently being reviewed in courts has ignited cries of resistance from both within the U.S. and abroad. l'd like to take a minute, with your indulgence, to add my voice to the heap. Because this is not just a U.S. issue. This is a human issue that has implications for all of us; American and non-American citizens like myself. Persecution against any group for religious beliefs or race is illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. Period This isn't just an attack on Muslims or refugees -this is an attack on all humans and in particular, the ones most in need of protection. Right now, worldwide, 28 million children have been uprooted by conflict, driven from their homes by violence and terror. Children know no nations and no borders; those who survive will grow up to follow the lead of those who take them in. Do we show them love and acceptance? Or allow them to fend for themselves, vulnerable to guerrilla groups that will only teach them to perpetuate this cycle of violence? We have to be vigilant about letting bigotry and hatred creep into the mainstream or be rationalized under the guise of "protecting our people." If we accept blanket targeting towards Muslims, we can all be sure that other minority groups won't be far behind, whether it's by closing borders to other supposed "dangerous" groups or trampling their human rights in other ways. Muslims are our people. They are human beings with children, needs and dreams like the rest of us. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and by the way, not all terrorists are Muslims. Latinos are our people. They don't come to "steal jobs" _ they come seeking an opportunity to build a better life for themselves and for their children, which is what the U.S. has always prided itself on representing: opportunities. They are a huge part of the workforce that has contributed to making America the great country it is today African Americans are our people. After enduring centuries of oppression and the countless human atrocities that were committed against them, after fighting for civil rights, it's devastating that racial profiling is still happening and their civil liberties are still being threatened. I could go on naming groups ad infinitum, but the point is, we shouldn't be singling out aroups and differentiating themm by race, class or religion, because according to the Constitution, all of that is irrelevant to their rights as a citizen. Anybody who goes to the U.S. and chooses to raise that flag and uphold those principles is "our people." Thanks to social networks, we all have a platform to use our voice today. For every post l see with hateful language, I see others that lift my spirits and reassure me that we haven't totally lost our way. Lawyers in airports offering free counsel to refugees, New Yorkers banding together on the subway to erase neo-Nazi vandalism, doctors volunteering their time to give free advice to women that need it, and citizen activists marching for equal rights for all. Let's keep tipping the scales in favor of "liberty and justice for all," keep using our voices to lift up others and speak out for those whose voices have been stripped from them. I applaud all of you who have spoken out against the ban keep up the good fight and never back down. shakisabell: Shakira’s article from TIME http://time.com/4665295/shakira-donald-trump-ban/ Shakira is so eloquent. An incomparable, caring star.
Advice, America, and Children: Shakira
 14 mins .
 The recent ban on Muslims entering the U.S. proposed by
 Donald Trump and currently being reviewed in courts has
 ignited cries of resistance from both within the U.S. and
 abroad. l'd like to take a minute, with your indulgence, to
 add my voice to the heap. Because this is not just a U.S.
 issue. This is a human issue that has implications for all of
 us; American and non-American citizens like myself.
 Persecution against any group for religious beliefs or race is
 illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. Period
 This isn't just an attack on Muslims or refugees -this is an
 attack on all humans and in particular, the ones most in
 need of protection. Right now, worldwide, 28 million children
 have been uprooted by conflict, driven from their homes by
 violence and terror. Children know no nations and no
 borders; those who survive will grow up to follow the lead of
 those who take them in. Do we show them love and
 acceptance? Or allow them to fend for themselves,
 vulnerable to guerrilla groups that will only teach them to
 perpetuate this cycle of violence?
 We have to be vigilant about letting bigotry and hatred
 creep into the mainstream or be rationalized under the guise
 of "protecting our people." If we accept blanket targeting
 towards Muslims, we can all be sure that other minority
 groups won't be far behind, whether it's by closing borders
 to other supposed "dangerous" groups or trampling their
 human rights in other ways.
 Muslims are our people. They are human beings with
 children, needs and dreams like the rest of us. Not all
 Muslims are terrorists, and by the way, not all terrorists are
 Muslims.

 Latinos are our people. They don't come to "steal jobs" _
 they come seeking an opportunity to build a better life for
 themselves and for their children, which is what the U.S. has
 always prided itself on representing: opportunities. They are
 a huge part of the workforce that has contributed to making
 America the great country it is today
 African Americans are our people. After enduring centuries
 of oppression and the countless human atrocities that were
 committed against them, after fighting for civil rights, it's
 devastating that racial profiling is still happening and their
 civil liberties are still being threatened.
 I could go on naming groups ad infinitum, but the point is,
 we shouldn't be singling out aroups and differentiating themm
 by race, class or religion, because according to the
 Constitution, all of that is irrelevant to their rights as a
 citizen. Anybody who goes to the U.S. and chooses to raise
 that flag and uphold those principles is "our people."
 Thanks to social networks, we all have a platform to use our
 voice today. For every post l see with hateful language, I see
 others that lift my spirits and reassure me that we haven't
 totally lost our way. Lawyers in airports offering free counsel
 to refugees, New Yorkers banding together on the subway
 to erase neo-Nazi vandalism, doctors volunteering their
 time to give free advice to women that need it, and citizen
 activists marching for equal rights for all.
 Let's keep tipping the scales in favor of "liberty and justice
 for all," keep using our voices to lift up others and speak out
 for those whose voices have been stripped from them. I
 applaud all of you who have spoken out against the ban
 keep up the good fight and never back down.
shakisabell:

Shakira’s article from TIME http://time.com/4665295/shakira-donald-trump-ban/

Shakira is so eloquent. An incomparable, caring star.

shakisabell: Shakira’s article from TIME http://time.com/4665295/shakira-donald-trump-ban/ Shakira is so eloquent. An incomparable, caring...

Advice, America, and Tumblr: 1.6% Only 1.6% of US Citizens owned slaves in 1860, when slavery was at its PEAK So you can stop basing your hate for the white race, on the actions of a mere 1.6%. source: US Government Census, 1860 <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://sjw-illogical-bullshit.tumblr.com/post/144343465712">sjw-illogical-bullshit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://tabbitcha.tumblr.com/post/125782147806">tabbitcha</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://ximbatmanshhh.tumblr.com/post/125774823842">ximbatmanshhh</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://wedontneedsocialjusticewarriors.tumblr.com/post/125774429695">wedontneedsocialjusticewarriors</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://ima-fuckingt4ble.tumblr.com/post/125753005956">ima-fuckingt4ble</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pryathis.tumblr.com/post/125745651455">pryathis</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://tradnetwork.tumblr.com/post/125744921977">tradnetwork</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://swaggerernationalsocialist.tumblr.com/post/125665415429">swaggerernationalsocialist</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://obamadawn.tumblr.com/post/125438560781">obamadawn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>98% of white people did not own slaves–move along</p> </blockquote> <p>And I’d be willing to bet that 1.6% is too high a number considering plenty of blacks, native americans, and other non-whites owned slaves too.</p> </blockquote> <p>The arab-african slave trade had more white slaves from eastern Europe than all Africans sold to Americans by African slave traders.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not to mention the majority of the “white” families in america were still in europe when slavery was prevalent.</p> </blockquote> <p>Interesting</p> </blockquote> <p>I knew most people didn’t own slaves but… 1.6%? That’s quite a small number to judge every single white person with.</p> <p>-mod JA</p> </blockquote> <p>Featuring: A historically accurate post that won’t get notes because it doesn’t support the narrative that it is acceptable to hate white people for slavery.</p> </blockquote> <p>I actually didn’t know that. </p> <p>Also, it was touched upon, but not all slave owners were white. <br/>American =/= white. </p> </blockquote> <p>As a matter of fact, there are currently more slaves in the world than there ever were in history! It really doesn’t take much digging, there are countless articles on this. <a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/there-are-more-slaves-today-any-time-human-history">This </a>is the first one that popped up, but since there are so many i just advice you to search for ‘more slaves now than ever’ because there’s no way i’m going to be able to list them all.</p> <p>-Mod Gemini</p> </blockquote> <p>Slave owning was largely for the well-to-do. Some of the more middle-class may have had one or two house servants but the Hollywood depiction of hundreds of slaves working the fields is pretty much strictly wealthy plantation owners, of which there were not many. They were greatly outnumbered by poor whites.</p>
Advice, America, and Tumblr: 1.6%
 Only 1.6% of US
 Citizens owned
 slaves in 1860,
 when slavery was
 at its PEAK
 So you can stop basing your
 hate for the white race, on
 the actions of a mere 1.6%.
 source: US Government Census, 1860
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://sjw-illogical-bullshit.tumblr.com/post/144343465712">sjw-illogical-bullshit</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://tabbitcha.tumblr.com/post/125782147806">tabbitcha</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://ximbatmanshhh.tumblr.com/post/125774823842">ximbatmanshhh</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://wedontneedsocialjusticewarriors.tumblr.com/post/125774429695">wedontneedsocialjusticewarriors</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://ima-fuckingt4ble.tumblr.com/post/125753005956">ima-fuckingt4ble</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pryathis.tumblr.com/post/125745651455">pryathis</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://tradnetwork.tumblr.com/post/125744921977">tradnetwork</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://swaggerernationalsocialist.tumblr.com/post/125665415429">swaggerernationalsocialist</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://obamadawn.tumblr.com/post/125438560781">obamadawn</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>98% of white people did not own slaves–move along</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And I’d be willing to bet that 1.6% is too high a number considering plenty of blacks, native americans, and other non-whites owned slaves too.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The arab-african slave trade had more white slaves from eastern Europe than all Africans sold to Americans by African slave traders.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not to mention the majority of the “white” families in america were still in europe when slavery was prevalent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Interesting</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I knew most people didn’t own slaves but… 1.6%? That’s quite a small number to judge every single white person with.</p>
<p>-mod JA</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Featuring:  A historically accurate post that won’t get notes because it doesn’t support the narrative that it is acceptable to hate white people for slavery.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I actually didn’t know that. </p>
<p>Also, it was touched upon, but not all slave owners were white. <br/>American =/= white. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a matter of fact, there are currently more slaves in the world than there ever were in history! It really doesn’t take much digging, there are countless articles on this. <a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/there-are-more-slaves-today-any-time-human-history">This </a>is the first one that popped up, but since there are so many i just advice you to search for ‘more slaves now than ever’ because there’s no way i’m going to be able to list them all.</p>
<p>-Mod Gemini</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Slave owning was largely for the well-to-do. Some of the more middle-class may have had one or two house servants but the Hollywood depiction of hundreds of slaves working the fields is pretty much strictly wealthy plantation owners, of which there were not many. They were greatly outnumbered by poor whites.</p>

sjw-illogical-bullshit: tabbitcha: ximbatmanshhh: wedontneedsocialjusticewarriors: ima-fuckingt4ble: pryathis: tradnetwork: swaggerer...

Community, Lgbt, and Pope Francis: Founded in 1913, he ref uge andculttr center at the onset of the modernlesbian,gay bisexual, and trans- gender LGBT civii rights movement. The store provided resources to those working to gain legal rights for VBT people. PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMSSION 20172 ELIX GAT GAYDAR GAY'S THE WORD ing eting LESBIAN & GAY BOOKSHOP ADAM HASLETT UNION ATLANTIC NEw Sexualiry Srudies atrick THE POPE is SHAME WHITE COLM TOi DARK TIME HE TRIB LIVING IT OUT OUT OF THE CLIFT metropolitan lovers ueer ives Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. RECOCK LH. GLAD DAY bookshop ACT INFORMATION adayinthelesbianlife: “The LGBT community, however loved/accepted/tolerated, will always be a minority. Our newfound sociopolitical liberties, instead of obliterating the need for a distinctive gay culture, should instead give us license to explore that culture and develop it further. We need gay bookstores, not as sanctuaries for the repressed, but as museums and libraries for the out and proud. As David M. Halperin points out in his book How to Be Gay, “Unlike the members of minority groups defined by race or ethnicity or religion, gays cannot rely on their birth families to teach them about their history or their culture. They must discover their roots through contact with the larger society and the larger world.” - Why we still need LGBT bookstores, by Daniel Lefferts
Community, Lgbt, and Pope Francis: Founded in 1913, he
 ref uge andculttr
 center at the onset of
 the modernlesbian,gay
 bisexual, and trans-
 gender LGBT civii
 rights movement. The
 store provided resources
 to those working to gain
 legal rights for VBT
 people.
 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMSSION 20172

 ELIX GAT
 GAYDAR

 GAY'S THE WORD
 ing
 eting
 LESBIAN & GAY BOOKSHOP

 ADAM HASLETT
 UNION
 ATLANTIC
 NEw Sexualiry Srudies
 atrick
 THE
 POPE
 is
 SHAME
 WHITE
 COLM TOi
 DARK TIME
 HE TRIB
 LIVING IT OUT
 OUT OF THE
 CLIFT
 metropolitan
 lovers
 ueer
 ives
 Sarcasm is just one more
 service we offer.

 RECOCK
 LH.
 GLAD
 DAY
 bookshop
 ACT
 INFORMATION
adayinthelesbianlife:

“The LGBT community, however loved/accepted/tolerated, will always be a minority. Our newfound sociopolitical liberties, instead of obliterating the need for a distinctive gay culture, should instead give us license to explore that culture and develop it further. We need gay bookstores, not as sanctuaries for the repressed, but as museums and libraries for the out and proud. As David M. Halperin points out in his book How to Be Gay, “Unlike the members of minority groups defined by race or ethnicity or religion, gays cannot rely on their birth families to teach them about their history or their culture. They must discover their roots through contact with the larger society and the larger world.” 
- Why we still need LGBT bookstores, by Daniel Lefferts

adayinthelesbianlife: “The LGBT community, however loved/accepted/tolerated, will always be a minority. Our newfound sociopolitical liberti...

Apple, Facebook, and Football: tibets Reporter wears grape costume to defend boy suspended for banana suit shatterstag: gaymergirls: basedheisenberg: Real recognizes real. I finally got curious and decided to google this story, and the headline is just the tip of the iceberg.  Let it never be said again that journalism is a humorless business. Covering an odd tale about a 14-year-old autistic boy who was handcuffed by police and suspended for running down the sidelines of a high school football game at halftime wearing a banana costume, Washington, D.C. reporter Pat Collins donned a grape suit and went out to get his story. Speaking to Bryan Thompson, who pulled the prank on Sept. 14 and found himself at the center of a controversy over the school’s response, Collins’ sarcastic outrage seemed palpable. “School officials accused him of being disruptive and disrespectful,” Collins said. “Frankly, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.” He asked the student: “Why a banana? Why not a … grape?” “I don’t know,” Thompson replied. “Potassium is great.” Following the prank, Colonial Forge High School Principal Karen Spillman suspended Thompson for 10 days, and even recommended that he be kicked out of school for the entire year. Shortly thereafter, Thompson had composed his own rap song about the incident (called “Free Banana Man!”), set up a Facebook page dedicated to “Banana Man,” and someone even launched a petition calling for his suspension to be lifted. Thompson’s outrage at the punishment was shared by his fellow students, who began creating yellow t-shirts that read, “Free Banana Man!” So the school did what schools so often do when their authority is challenged: they banned the shirts, began confiscating them, and sent students to detention for supporting their classmate. That’s when the American Civil Liberties Union got involved, telling the principal that her actions were unconstitutional. “But when you think about it, you might see [the school’s] point,” Collins jokingly concluded. “It starts with a banana. Then, all of the sudden, you have an apple, and an orange, and maybe a grape! And before you know it, you have fruit salad in the schools! We can’t have that.” The school’s principal was ultimately forced to resign, and Thompson has since returned to his studies. [x] NICE
Apple, Facebook, and Football: tibets
 Reporter wears grape costume to defend
 boy suspended for banana suit
shatterstag:

gaymergirls:

basedheisenberg:

Real recognizes real.

I finally got curious and decided to google this story, and the headline is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Let it never be said again that journalism is a humorless business.
Covering an odd tale about a 14-year-old autistic boy who was handcuffed by police and suspended for running down the sidelines of a high school football game at halftime wearing a banana costume, Washington, D.C. reporter Pat Collins donned a grape suit and went out to get his story.
Speaking to Bryan Thompson, who pulled the prank on Sept. 14 and found himself at the center of a controversy over the school’s response, Collins’ sarcastic outrage seemed palpable.
“School officials accused him of being disruptive and disrespectful,” Collins said. “Frankly, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.”
He asked the student: “Why a banana? Why not a … grape?”
“I don’t know,” Thompson replied. “Potassium is great.”
Following the prank, Colonial Forge High School Principal Karen Spillman suspended Thompson for 10 days, and even recommended that he be kicked out of school for the entire year.
Shortly thereafter, Thompson had composed his own rap song about the incident (called “Free Banana Man!”), set up a Facebook page dedicated to “Banana Man,” and someone even launched a petition calling for his suspension to be lifted.
Thompson’s outrage at the punishment was shared by his fellow students, who began creating yellow t-shirts that read, “Free Banana Man!”
So the school did what schools so often do when their authority is challenged: they banned the shirts, began confiscating them, and sent students to detention for supporting their classmate.
That’s when the American Civil Liberties Union got involved, telling the principal that her actions were unconstitutional.
“But when you think about it, you might see [the school’s] point,” Collins jokingly concluded. “It starts with a banana. Then, all of the sudden, you have an apple, and an orange, and maybe a grape! And before you know it, you have fruit salad in the schools! We can’t have that.”
The school’s principal was ultimately forced to resign, and Thompson has since returned to his studies. [x]


NICE

shatterstag: gaymergirls: basedheisenberg: Real recognizes real. I finally got curious and decided to google this story, and the headlin...

Being Alone, America, and Ass: WHAT IF I TOLD YOU YOU CAN CONDEMN POLICE BRUTALITY AND STILL APPRECIATE POLICE OFFICERS mage on imgur <p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/120720618693/i-am-dallas-redbloodedamerica" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p><blockquote><p><a href="http://i-am-dallas.tumblr.com/post/120713189650/redbloodedamerica-smashedpolitics" class="tumblr_blog">i-am-dallas</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/120711194812/smashedpolitics-redbloodedamerica-bobevin" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://smashedpolitics.tumblr.com/post/120703357980/redbloodedamerica-bobevin" class="tumblr_blog">smashedpolitics</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/120691695851/bobevin-redbloodedamerica-im-getting-really" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://bobevin.tumblr.com/post/108057677150/redbloodedamerica-im-getting-really-fed-up" class="tumblr_blog">bobevin</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/97090701289/im-getting-really-fed-up-with-the-fuck-the" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>I’m getting really fed up with the “fuck the police” sentiment pouring in from those on the left and on the extreme right.  There’s nothing “fascist” about good officers in a community doing their jobs.  Yes, some of them are bad (as with any job) and need to be fired and/or arrested, but the majority of these people stick their neck out every day for you and me.  And no, we do not live in a “police state.”  Enough with this nonsense. </p></blockquote> <p>We live in a police state. Stop watching fox and read</p></blockquote> <p>You wouldn’t know a police state even if it came up and bit you on the ass.</p></blockquote> <p>Americans are 20 times more likely per capita to get killed by your police than the British are by our police. I dont disagree with you on many things, but getting killed 20 times more than a civilised nation means you have a brutal police force</p></blockquote> <figure data-orig-width="245" data-orig-height="260"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/75d05ef8efb085df71d4139168941552/tumblr_inline_npfnmuKhNh1r1jtxd_500.gif" alt="image" data-orig-width="245" data-orig-height="260"/></figure><p>That is a gross generalization and completely misinterprets the definition of an actual police state.  Even if police shootings were one hundred times more prevalent in the United States than Europe, that alone will never make this country a police state.  To say otherwise, is exhibiting a complete lack of understanding of the term.  Besides, when you talk about people getting killed by police, you immediately assume they were all innocent which is completely false <a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/117874602711/aceteron-postmemes-serve-and-protect-the">as I have mentioned before</a>.</p><p>When anti-police activists misuse the term <i>police state</i> to mean something derogatory about everyday police officers, it is essentially only watering down the original term.  It’s just like when SJWs throw around the word <i>slavery</i> to mean anything and everything oppressive - “mental slavery,” “reproductive slavery,” “slave wages,” etc.  It only dilutes the actual use of the word.</p><p>If you want to witness an actual police state, look no further than North Korea. Calling the United States, where thousands of people have fled to after escaping <i>actual</i> police states throughout history, is a slap in the face.</p></blockquote> <p>Sorry, but that defense is weak. It’s as if you expect a totalitarian monarchy before you’re willing to accept that it’s a police state. The problem here is obvious. One side waters it down, the other side only accepts the most radical version. Setting aside the fact that it’s not really a subjective term, and what you consider a police state and what I consider a police state may be imagined differently, but I’m certain we could come to some mild agreement about what it would entail. That being said, here is a list of things that all police states have in common:</p><p>1) Massive surveillance apparatus that spies on anyone and everyone without regard to the privacy or the rights of the individual. Check<br/>2) An agency or industry that can assault, kill, or lock you away for any reason and most likely get away with it. Check<br/>3) An agency or industry that dresses the part of the antagonist, wearing body armor and carrying heavy weaponry around mostly unarmed people. Check.<br/>4) A systemic view of police whereby “public guarding”, which happens to be an expectation of the average citizen, is set aside and police are turned into “law enforcement” agents who’s primary function is to issue citations or find a way to enroll the citizen into the state’s extortion scheme. Check.<br/>5) A rogue institution of policing around the country that involves portraying the citizen as the primary target, resulting in needless bullying by police. Check<br/>6) “A <strike>totalitarian</strike> society controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities.“ CHECK<br/></p><p>But your definition seems to require a totalitarian society, and that may be how it’s technically defined, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as a reactionary effect of people who live under the boot of police or live in a society where police have very little accountability. Who in their right mind could possibly deny that police are seen as an aggressor or antagonist? They don’t guard the public, nor should they have any claim to ‘self defense’ when they are the one pursuing the people in the first place. If I pursued and shot someone, I wouldn’t be able to claim self defense. But see, they’re not actually “police officers”. They are Law Enforcement and they are there on behalf of the government. As employees of the government, they cannot be there for your benefit. I feel a true conservative would view our law enforcement today as a severe encroachment onto our liberties. But the neo-con Republicans look at it like a blind allegiance or patriotic expression that police must be respected, loved and coddled, just like the military and the church. It’s absolutely disgusting.<br/></p></blockquote><p>I’m not watering anything down. I’ve acknowledged that there are some bad cops, although they are few and far between.  There are some cases of militarization of the police, but it’s not as rampant as some would allude.  I’m a realist.  I know where the actual blame lies in the majority of the bad attitudes against our police officers - it’s in our overabundance of constricting laws and our crumby criminal justice system; not the average cop that sticks his neck out on the line for you and me.</p><p>I’ll respond to a couple of your attributes of a “police state” though:</p><p>1) Arguably yes.  Although that’s what most of this recent disagreement regarding the Patriot Act was about.  Is it as restrictive as an actual police state though in which your every word or movement is questioned under possible detainment?  No.  No, it is not.  You actually have rights in America, including the Freedom of Speech.  Odds are, your local police officer would agree with your thoughts on protecting your Fourth Amendment rights and your right to privacy…considering they would apply to he/she as well.</p><p>2) False.  We have a justice system in which you have a right to defend yourself in a court of law.  The police and court system, as lousy as it is at times, must also respect your rights and obey the laws that protect the citizen.  In a real police state, the police (again, run directly by the state) are the judge and jury.  You have very few, if any, rights in a police state.  I’m not saying our system is perfect or that it doesn’t need reform; I’m merely stating it does not remotely resemble an actual police state.</p><p>3) “<i>Dresses the part of the antagonist</i>.” This is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard all day.  The majority of police officers look like this:</p><figure data-orig-width="450" data-orig-height="338" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9905cd9e6cbcc81bd6adcc71503875cc/tumblr_inline_npfq8fBKtj1r1jtxd_540.jpg" data-orig-width="450" data-orig-height="338"/></figure><p>What you are trying to paint them as:</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="292" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ec19459810a7a0383186e4a0e5819339/tumblr_inline_npfqlvN5et1r1jtxd_540.jpg" data-orig-height="292" data-orig-width="450"/></figure><p>It’s all about wording.  And this is where anti-police activists (for the lack of a better term) just can’t help themselves to just take a step back and think objectively.  You clearly and cognitively see police as an “<i>antagonist</i>,” and that’s where you lose any credibility in your argument.  You’re projecting your own personal views to appear as facts, and that just doesn’t cut muster here.</p><p>Besides, having a militarized police body, still <i>does not</i> make a country a “police state.”  Need I remind everyone that the Gestapo worn plain clothes unlike the SS.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/dea446aed951f8d7b3075e3d892a180d/tumblr_inline_npfsw663Dg1r1jtxd_540.jpg" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="450"/></figure><p>4) You lost me on this one entirely.  Are you insinuating that police do not protect and serve the public?  If so, I’m sure I have some fine officers that would happily disagree with you.  Your still projecting this notion that police officers are just driving around harassing innocent people.  Look, I hate getting speeding tickets like the next guy, but let’s not lose focus of reality here.</p><p>5) Again, police are not bullying the average citizen across the country.  Where is your proof of this widespread targeting of innocent Americans?  Where does this stuff permeate into the collective minds of so many young people?  It’s simply not true.</p><p>6) We don’t have a totalitarian (or otherwise) society controlled by a “political police force.”  Of course you don’t think it has to involve a totalitarian state because you are basing your views on your own personal negativity bias.  You hate cops…<i>okay</i>, we get it.  Still not a police state though. </p></blockquote> <p>I am so over police haters cherry picking to make it seem like we live in the freaking Hunger Games.</p>
Being Alone, America, and Ass: WHAT IF I TOLD YOU
 YOU CAN CONDEMN POLICE BRUTALITY
 AND STILL APPRECIATE POLICE OFFICERS
 mage on imgur
<p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/120720618693/i-am-dallas-redbloodedamerica" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p><blockquote><p><a href="http://i-am-dallas.tumblr.com/post/120713189650/redbloodedamerica-smashedpolitics" class="tumblr_blog">i-am-dallas</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/120711194812/smashedpolitics-redbloodedamerica-bobevin" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://smashedpolitics.tumblr.com/post/120703357980/redbloodedamerica-bobevin" class="tumblr_blog">smashedpolitics</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/120691695851/bobevin-redbloodedamerica-im-getting-really" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://bobevin.tumblr.com/post/108057677150/redbloodedamerica-im-getting-really-fed-up" class="tumblr_blog">bobevin</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/97090701289/im-getting-really-fed-up-with-the-fuck-the" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>I’m getting really fed up with the “fuck the police” sentiment pouring in from those on the left and on the extreme right.  There’s nothing “fascist” about good officers in a community doing their jobs.  Yes, some of them are bad (as with any job) and need to be fired and/or arrested, but the majority of these people stick their neck out every day for you and me.  And no, we do not live in a “police state.”  Enough with this nonsense. </p></blockquote>

<p>We live in a police state. Stop watching fox and read</p></blockquote>

<p>You wouldn’t know a police state even if it came up and bit you on the ass.</p></blockquote>

<p>Americans are 20 times more likely per capita to get killed by your police than the British are by our police. I dont disagree with you on many things, but getting killed 20 times more than a civilised nation means you have a brutal police force</p></blockquote>

<figure data-orig-width="245" data-orig-height="260"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/75d05ef8efb085df71d4139168941552/tumblr_inline_npfnmuKhNh1r1jtxd_500.gif" alt="image" data-orig-width="245" data-orig-height="260"/></figure><p>That is a gross generalization and completely misinterprets the definition of an actual police state.  Even if police shootings were one hundred times more prevalent in the United States than Europe, that alone will never make this country a police state.  To say otherwise, is exhibiting a complete lack of understanding of the term.  Besides, when you talk about people getting killed by police, you immediately assume they were all innocent which is completely false <a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/117874602711/aceteron-postmemes-serve-and-protect-the">as I have mentioned before</a>.</p><p>When anti-police activists misuse the term <i>police state</i> to mean something derogatory about everyday police officers, it is essentially only watering down the original term.  It’s just like when SJWs throw around the word <i>slavery</i> to mean anything and everything oppressive - “mental slavery,” “reproductive slavery,” “slave wages,” etc.  It only dilutes the actual use of the word.</p><p>If you want to witness an actual police state, look no further than North Korea. Calling the United States, where thousands of people have fled to after escaping <i>actual</i> police states throughout history, is a slap in the face.</p></blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but that defense is weak. It’s as if you expect a totalitarian monarchy before you’re willing to accept that it’s a police state. The problem here is obvious. One side waters it down, the other side only accepts the most radical version. Setting aside the fact that it’s not really a subjective term, and what you consider a police state and what I consider a police state may be imagined differently, but I’m certain we could come to some mild agreement about what it would entail. That being said, here is a list of things that all police states have in common:</p><p>1) Massive surveillance apparatus that spies on anyone and everyone without regard to the privacy or the rights of the individual. Check<br/>2) An agency or industry that can assault, kill, or lock you away for any reason and most likely get away with it. Check<br/>3) An agency or industry that dresses the part of the antagonist, wearing body armor and carrying heavy weaponry around mostly unarmed people. Check.<br/>4) A systemic view of police whereby “public guarding”, which happens to be an expectation of the average citizen, is set aside and police are turned into “law enforcement” agents who’s primary function is to issue citations or find a way to enroll the citizen into the state’s extortion scheme. Check.<br/>5) A rogue institution of policing around the country that involves portraying the citizen as the primary target, resulting in needless bullying by police. Check<br/>6) “A <strike>totalitarian</strike> society controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities.“ CHECK<br/></p><p>But your definition seems to require a totalitarian society, and that may be how it’s technically defined, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as a reactionary effect of people who live under the boot of police or live in a society where police have very little accountability. Who in their right mind could possibly deny that police are seen as an aggressor or antagonist? They don’t guard the public, nor should they have any claim to ‘self defense’ when they are the one pursuing the people in the first place. If I pursued and shot someone, I wouldn’t be able to claim self defense. But see, they’re not actually “police officers”. They are Law Enforcement and they are there on behalf of the government. As employees of the government, they cannot be there for your benefit. I feel a true conservative would view our law enforcement today as a severe encroachment onto our liberties. But the neo-con Republicans look at it like a blind allegiance or patriotic expression that police must be respected, loved and coddled, just like the military and the church. It’s absolutely disgusting.<br/></p></blockquote><p>I’m not watering anything down. I’ve acknowledged that there are some bad cops, although they are few and far between.  There are some cases of militarization of the police, but it’s not as rampant as some would allude.  I’m a realist.  I know where the actual blame lies in the majority of the bad attitudes against our police officers - it’s in our overabundance of constricting laws and our crumby criminal justice system; not the average cop that sticks his neck out on the line for you and me.</p><p>I’ll respond to a couple of your attributes of a “police state” though:</p><p>1) Arguably yes.  Although that’s what most of this recent disagreement regarding the Patriot Act was about.  Is it as restrictive as an actual police state though in which your every word or movement is questioned under possible detainment?  No.  No, it is not.  You actually have rights in America, including the Freedom of Speech.  Odds are, your local police officer would agree with your thoughts on protecting your Fourth Amendment rights and your right to privacy…considering they would apply to he/she as well.</p><p>2) False.  We have a justice system in which you have a right to defend yourself in a court of law.  The police and court system, as lousy as it is at times, must also respect your rights and obey the laws that protect the citizen.  In a real police state, the police (again, run directly by the state) are the judge and jury.  You have very few, if any, rights in a police state.  I’m not saying our system is perfect or that it doesn’t need reform; I’m merely stating it does not remotely resemble an actual police state.</p><p>3) “<i>Dresses the part of the antagonist</i>.” This is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard all day.  The majority of police officers look like this:</p><figure data-orig-width="450" data-orig-height="338" class="tmblr-full"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/9905cd9e6cbcc81bd6adcc71503875cc/tumblr_inline_npfq8fBKtj1r1jtxd_540.jpg" data-orig-width="450" data-orig-height="338"/></figure><p>What you are trying to paint them as:</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="292" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/ec19459810a7a0383186e4a0e5819339/tumblr_inline_npfqlvN5et1r1jtxd_540.jpg" data-orig-height="292" data-orig-width="450"/></figure><p>It’s all about wording.  And this is where anti-police activists (for the lack of a better term) just can’t help themselves to just take a step back and think objectively.  You clearly and cognitively see police as an “<i>antagonist</i>,” and that’s where you lose any credibility in your argument.  You’re projecting your own personal views to appear as facts, and that just doesn’t cut muster here.</p><p>Besides, having a militarized police body, still <i>does not</i> make a country a “police state.”  Need I remind everyone that the Gestapo worn plain clothes unlike the SS.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/dea446aed951f8d7b3075e3d892a180d/tumblr_inline_npfsw663Dg1r1jtxd_540.jpg" data-orig-height="310" data-orig-width="450"/></figure><p>4) You lost me on this one entirely.  Are you insinuating that police do not protect and serve the public?  If so, I’m sure I have some fine officers that would happily disagree with you.  Your still projecting this notion that police officers are just driving around harassing innocent people.  Look, I hate getting speeding tickets like the next guy, but let’s not lose focus of reality here.</p><p>5) Again, police are not bullying the average citizen across the country.  Where is your proof of this widespread targeting of innocent Americans?  Where does this stuff permeate into the collective minds of so many young people?  It’s simply not true.</p><p>6) We don’t have a totalitarian (or otherwise) society controlled by a “political police force.”  Of course you don’t think it has to involve a totalitarian state because you are basing your views on your own personal negativity bias.  You hate cops…<i>okay</i>, we get it.  Still not a police state though. </p></blockquote>
<p>I am so over police haters cherry picking to make it seem like we live in the freaking Hunger Games.</p>

redbloodedamerica:i-am-dallas: redbloodedamerica: smashedpolitics: redbloodedamerica: bobevin: redbloodedamerica: I’m getting really f...

Bodies , Drugs, and Jesus: Anonymous said: I don't have tumblr so I had to ask this account. You just posted about hobby lobby on your other account. I just don't understand why providing the means to contraception is so wrong. Regardless of whether or not contraception is okay, giving someone the option isn't forcing them or necessarily endorsing it. HL pays their employees money and the employees could use that money to buy drugs or hire prostitutes. But that's their choice, not HL's. Contraception doesn't seem so different to me Anonymous said: Their salary is the means by which they can buy things that HL may or may not agree with. The health coverage is the means by which they access health care that HL May or may not agree with. It just seems like it's not HL's choice at all. HL can't directly pay their employees rent and grocery bills to keep them from buying, say, excessive amounts of alcohol. So why should they be able to or argumentative. Thanks! <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://orwellianlegacy.tumblr.com/post/90384882296/hi-anon-this-is-a-good-question-because-theres">orwellianlegacy</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">Hi Anon,</p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is a good question, because there’s a lot of misinformation about this case floating around.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’ll do my best to explain the situation, as I understand it…</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>It’s not just about “contraception.”</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby’s issue isn’t with contraception in general. It’s with abortifacient contraception in particular.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Affordable Care Act includes a “<a href="http://rare.us/story/malkin-thank-you-hobby-lobby">‘preventive services’ mandate, which forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, abortion-inducing drugs including the ‘morning after pill’ and ‘week after pill’ in their health insurance plan.</a>”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Regardless of where you stand on abortion, I think we can all recognize that it’s a huge social issue that people regard with strong, ideological convictions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So there’s a lot more at play here than the simple word “contraception” fully conveys.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Paychecks and Health Insurance are different.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A paycheck represents a single exchange: Employees provide time and labor to Hobby Lobby, and Hobby Lobby compensates employees with money.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">That is the end of the exchange. What an employee chooses to purchase with their paycheck is no longer Hobby Lobby’s concern. Hobby Lobby isn’t directly involved, so it isn’t responsible.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Health insurance represents a different exchange. Hobby Lobby offers the benefit of a healthcare plan to employees, and the employees can accept or reject it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">But in this case, the Hobby Lobby is providing an ongoing service to the employee. So the nature of the health care provided is very much Hobby Lobby’s concern. Hobby Lobby is directly involved, so it is responsible.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Employee options aren’t at stake.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby isn’t trying to prevent its employees from seeking abortions. It just doesn’t want to be forced to pay for those abortions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And, contrary to the conclusion many jump to, that doesn’t actually restrict the freedom of anyone working for Hobby Lobby. Freedom isn’t about what our employers allow, it’s about what our government enforces.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So Hobby Lobby’s employees still have several options if they want these kinds of contraception:</p> <ol><li><span>As you said, they can spend their paycheck however they choose. So if they choose to spend it on an abortion, they’re free to do so.<br/><br/></span></li> <li><span>They can also choose not to participate in Hobby Lobby’s employer-provided healthcare plan and instead find a private healthcare plan that provides their desired contraception. (The Affordable Care Act has created huge obstacles to this option, but that’s the government’s fault, not Hobby Lobby’s.)<br/><br/></span></li> <li><span>Or if employees really want an employer-provided healthcare plan that includes their desired contraception, they’re free to find a new employer that provides it. Job searching sucks, but nobody is being </span><em>forced</em><span> to work for Hobby Lobby or for any other company that provides a healthcare plan they don’t like.</span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNormal">The Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t actually restrict Hobby Lobby employees’ healthcare options. It’s just restricts <em>one method of paying for a specific option.</em> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to stop employees from doing what they want to do. It just doesn’t want to be a part of it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>People should be free to run their businesses as they see fit.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So long as an employer has control over the design of the healthcare plan they offer and employees are given the option of accepting or rejecting it, everything is voluntary.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">But the Affordable Care Act effectively removed Hobby Lobby’s voluntary involvement. The benefit Hobby Lobby once offered is now an entitlement the government requires it to provide.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And, while Hobby Lobby could once design its healthcare plan however it saw fit, it is now forced to provide a government-regulated plan — one that included drugs it considers morally compromising.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">At this point the debate usually arises about whether corporations have rights.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Corporations aren’t people, they’re property.</span><span> So</span> corporations don’t have rights, but their owners still do.<span> </span><span>And the way a corporation like Hobby Lobby operates is an extension of its owners’ economic and religious liberty.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So when the government forces a corporation to operate against its owners convictions, the government is infringing on the owner’s liberty.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And corporate owners don’t have the option of going another route the way their employees do. Owners either comply with government dictates, or they close their businesses.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Thankfully, because the Supreme Court has chosen to protect the economic and religious rights of business owners, Hobby Lobby won’t have to do either …and that’s good news for its employees.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Everyone wins when liberty is protected.</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s easy to see the Supreme Court’s decision on this case as a win for conservatives or corporations or the pro-life moments. But the reality is that this is a win for everyone.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because the case was only about pro-life, corporate and conservative rights <em>this time. </em>Next time might be different.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">If the Supreme Court had forced Hobby Lobby to adhere to the contraceptive mandate, it would have set a precedent for favoring government regulation over economic and religious liberties.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And that could just as easily work against liberal, non-profit or pro-choice rights. Ideologies shift, but power doesn’t.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So the decision today wasn’t one ideology winning over another. It was liberty winning over tyranny.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Individual employees should be free to do what they want with their money and their bodies. Corporate owners should be free to do what they want with their money and their businesses. And the government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate how either one operates.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I hope that explanation makes sense. Thanks for getting your question to me — and for asking it so politely.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Peace, love and Jesus,<br/> -James</p> </blockquote>
Bodies , Drugs, and Jesus: Anonymous said:
 I don't have tumblr so I had to ask this account. You just posted about hobby
 lobby on your other account. I just don't understand why providing the means
 to contraception is so wrong. Regardless of whether or not contraception is
 okay, giving someone the option isn't forcing them or necessarily endorsing it.
 HL pays their employees money and the employees could use that money to
 buy drugs or hire prostitutes. But that's their choice, not HL's. Contraception
 doesn't seem so different to me

 Anonymous said:
 Their salary is the means by which they can buy things that HL may or may
 not agree with. The health coverage is the means by which they access health
 care that HL May or may not agree with. It just seems like it's not HL's choice
 at all. HL can't directly pay their employees rent and grocery bills to keep them
 from buying, say, excessive amounts of alcohol. So why should they be able to
 or argumentative. Thanks!
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://orwellianlegacy.tumblr.com/post/90384882296/hi-anon-this-is-a-good-question-because-theres">orwellianlegacy</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Anon,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a good question, because there’s a lot of misinformation about this case floating around.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ll do my best to explain the situation, as I understand it…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>It’s not just about “contraception.”</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby’s issue isn’t with contraception in general. It’s with abortifacient contraception in particular.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Affordable Care Act includes a “<a href="http://rare.us/story/malkin-thank-you-hobby-lobby">‘preventive services’ mandate, which forces the Christian-owned-and-operated business to provide, without co-pay, abortion-inducing drugs including the ‘morning after pill’ and ‘week after pill’ in their health insurance plan.</a>”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regardless of where you stand on abortion, I think we can all recognize that it’s a huge social issue that people regard with strong, ideological convictions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So there’s a lot more at play here than the simple word “contraception” fully conveys.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Paychecks and Health Insurance are different.</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A paycheck represents a single exchange: Employees provide time and labor to Hobby Lobby, and Hobby Lobby compensates employees with money.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is the end of the exchange. What an employee chooses to purchase with their paycheck is no longer Hobby Lobby’s concern. Hobby Lobby isn’t directly involved, so it isn’t responsible.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Health insurance represents a different exchange. Hobby Lobby offers the benefit of a healthcare plan to employees, and the employees can accept or reject it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But in this case, the Hobby Lobby is providing an ongoing service to the employee. So the nature of the health care provided is very much Hobby Lobby’s concern. Hobby Lobby is directly involved, so it is responsible.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Employee options aren’t at stake.</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby isn’t trying to prevent its employees from seeking abortions. It just doesn’t want to be forced to pay for those abortions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, contrary to the conclusion many jump to, that doesn’t actually restrict the freedom of anyone working for Hobby Lobby. Freedom isn’t about what our employers allow, it’s about what our government enforces.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So Hobby Lobby’s employees still have several options if they want these kinds of contraception:</p>
<ol><li><span>As you said, they can spend their paycheck however they choose. So if they choose to spend it on an abortion, they’re free to do so.<br/><br/></span></li>
<li><span>They can also choose not to participate in Hobby Lobby’s employer-provided healthcare plan and instead find a private healthcare plan that provides their desired contraception. (The Affordable Care Act has created huge obstacles to this option, but that’s the government’s fault, not Hobby Lobby’s.)<br/><br/></span></li>
<li><span>Or if employees really want an employer-provided healthcare plan that includes their desired contraception, they’re free to find a new employer that provides it. Job searching sucks, but nobody is being </span><em>forced</em><span> to work for Hobby Lobby or for any other company that provides a healthcare plan they don’t like.</span></li>
</ol><p class="MsoNormal">The Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t actually restrict Hobby Lobby employees’ healthcare options. It’s just restricts <em>one method of paying for a specific option.</em> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to stop employees from doing what they want to do. It just doesn’t want to be a part of it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>People should be free to run their businesses as they see fit.</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So long as an employer has control over the design of the healthcare plan they offer and employees are given the option of accepting or rejecting it, everything is voluntary.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the Affordable Care Act effectively removed Hobby Lobby’s voluntary involvement. The benefit Hobby Lobby once offered is now an entitlement the government requires it to provide.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, while Hobby Lobby could once design its healthcare plan however it saw fit, it is now forced to provide a government-regulated plan — one that included drugs it considers morally compromising.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At this point the debate usually arises about whether corporations have rights.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Corporations aren’t people, they’re property.</span><span> So</span> corporations don’t have rights, but their owners still do.<span> </span><span>And the way a corporation like Hobby Lobby operates is an extension of its owners’ economic and religious liberty.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So when the government forces a corporation to operate against its owners convictions, the government is infringing on the owner’s liberty.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And corporate owners don’t have the option of going another route the way their employees do. Owners either comply with government dictates, or they close their businesses.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thankfully, because the Supreme Court has chosen to protect the economic and religious rights of business owners, Hobby Lobby won’t have to do either …and that’s good news for its employees.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Everyone wins when liberty is protected.</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s easy to see the Supreme Court’s decision on this case as a win for conservatives or corporations or the pro-life moments. But the reality is that this is a win for everyone.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because the case was only about pro-life, corporate and conservative rights <em>this time. </em>Next time might be different.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If the Supreme Court had forced Hobby Lobby to adhere to the contraceptive mandate, it would have set a precedent for favoring government regulation over economic and religious liberties.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that could just as easily work against liberal, non-profit or pro-choice rights. Ideologies shift, but power doesn’t.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So the decision today wasn’t one ideology winning over another. It was liberty winning over tyranny.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Individual employees should be free to do what they want with their money and their bodies. Corporate owners should be free to do what they want with their money and their businesses. And the government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate how either one operates.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope that explanation makes sense. Thanks for getting your question to me — and for asking it so politely.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peace, love and Jesus,<br/> -James</p>
</blockquote>

orwellianlegacy: Hi Anon, This is a good question, because there’s a lot of misinformation about this case floating around. I’ll do my best...

Abraham Lincoln, Al Gore, and America: DEMOCRATS HARRY TRUMAMARGARETBANGER THE PARTY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FDR PLANNED PARENTHOOD ITHINE ONEMANG0OD SI ACCEP TO TALK REFUSED TO SUPPORT ANTI-LYNCHINGLAMS LBJ ANOTHER AS LONG ASHES NOT ANGGEROR CHINAMAN SENATORROBERTBYRD TO THEWOMANS BRANCHOFTHE KKK BILL CLINTON ON BYRD KLANSMAN I'LLHAVE THO SE V" G GERS VOTING DEMOCRATIC FOR 200 YEARS I SHALLNEVER FIGHT IN THE ARMED FORCES TWITH ANEGROEBY MY SIDE HE WAS TRYING TO GETELE CTED BEING LIBERAL IGNORANCE oF HI WHEN EXCUSES AND STORY MATTER MORE THAN THE FACTS www.facebook.com/SockPuppetProphets <p><a href="http://gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com/post/38361846083/prior-to-2010-the-following-is-what-readers-got" class="tumblr_blog">gop-tea-pub</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….</p> <blockquote> <p>Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws</strong>, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.</p> <p><strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.</strong> We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “explosive expose” bringing us all those facts <em>first, </em>so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…</p> <p>While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, here’s an except from yet <a href="http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html">another</a> list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they <em>“are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws”</em>…</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>October 13, 1858</strong><br/> During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: <em>“I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”</em>; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee</p> <p><strong>April 16, 1862<br/></strong> President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>July 17, 1862<br/></strong> Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes <a href="http://www.civilwarhome.com/confiscationact1862.htm">Confiscation Act</a> stating that slaves of the Confederacy <em>“shall be forever free”</em></p> <p><strong>January 31, 1865</strong><br/> 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition</p> <p><strong>April 8, 1865</strong><br/> 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition</p> <p><strong>November 22, 1865<br/></strong> Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “<a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASblackcodes.htm">black codes</a>,” which institutionalized racial discrimination</p> <p><strong>February 5, 1866</strong><br/> U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>April 9, 1866</strong><br/> Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1866.htm">Civil Rights Act of 1866</a>, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law</p> <p><strong>May 10, 1866</strong><br/> U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no</p> <p><strong>June 8, 1866</strong><br/> U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>January 8, 1867<br/></strong> Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.</p> <p><strong>July 19, 1867</strong><br/> Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans</p> <p><strong>March 30, 1868</strong><br/> Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: <em>“This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”</em></p> <p><strong>September 12, 1868</strong><br/> Civil rights activist <a href="http://www.footstepsmagazine.com/issues/2004/09/2004-09-more.html">Tunis Campbell</a> and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>October 7, 1868</strong><br/> Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: <em>“This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”</em></p> <p><strong>October 22, 1868</strong><br/> While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan</p> <p><strong>December 10, 1869<br/></strong> Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office</p> <p><strong>February 3, 1870</strong><br/> After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>May 31, 1870<br/></strong> President U.S. Grant signs <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_enforce.html">Republicans’ Enforcement Act</a>, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights</p> <p><strong>June 22, 1870</strong><br/> Republican Congress creates <strong>U.S. Department of Justice</strong>, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South</p> <p><strong>September 6, 1870</strong><br/> Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell</p> <p><strong>February 28, 1871</strong><br/> Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters</p> <p><strong>April 20, 1871</strong><br/> Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>October 10, 1871</strong><br/> Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands</p> <p><strong>October 18, 1871</strong><br/> After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan</p> <p><strong>November 18, 1872</strong><br/> Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for <em>“the Republican ticket, straight”</em></p> <p><strong>January 17, 1874</strong><br/> Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government</p> <p><strong>September 14, 1874</strong><br/> Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>March 1, 1875</strong><br/><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1875.htm">Civil Rights Act of 1875</a>, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition</p> <p><strong>January 10, 1878</strong><br/> U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong</p> <p><strong>February 8, 1894</strong><br/> Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote</p> <p><strong>January 15, 1901</strong><br/> Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>May 29, 1902</strong><br/> Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%</p> <p><strong>February 12, 1909</strong><br/> On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP</p> <p><strong>May 21, 1919</strong><br/> Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no</p> <p><strong>August 18, 1920</strong><br/> Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures</p> <p><strong>January 26, 1922</strong><br/> House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong><br/></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>June 2, 1924</strong><br/> Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans</p> <p><strong>October 3, 1924</strong><br/> Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention</p> <p><strong>June 12, 1929</strong><br/> First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country</p> <p><strong>August 17, 1937</strong><br/> Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation</p> <p><strong>June 24, 1940</strong><br/> Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>August 8, 1945</strong><br/> Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”</p> <p><strong>September 30, 1953</strong><br/> Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education</p> <p><strong>November 25, 1955</strong><br/> Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel</p> <p><strong>March 12, 1956</strong><br/> Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation</p> <p><strong>June 5, 1956</strong><br/> Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down <em>“blacks in the back of the bus”</em> law</p> <p><strong>November 6, 1956</strong><br/> African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President</p> <p><strong>September 9, 1957</strong><br/> President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>September 24, 1957</strong><br/> Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus">Orval Faubus</a> to integrate public schools</p> <p><strong>May 6, 1960</strong><br/> President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats</p> <p><strong>May 2, 1963</strong><br/> Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights</p> <p><strong>September 29, 1963</strong><br/> Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School</p> <p><strong>June 9, 1964</strong><br/> Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>June 10, 1964</strong><br/> Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.</p> <p><strong>August 4, 1965</strong><br/> Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor</p> <p><strong>February 19, 1976</strong><br/> President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII</p> <p><strong>September 15, 1981</strong><br/> President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs</p> <p><strong>June 29, 1982</strong><br/> President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act</p> <p><strong>August 10, 1988</strong><br/> President Ronald Reagan signs <a href="http://www.children-of-the-camps.org/history/civilact.html">Civil Liberties Act of 1988</a>, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR</p> <p><strong>November 21, 1991</strong><br/> President George H. W. Bush signs <a href="http://www.legalarchiver.org/civil.htm">Civil Rights Act of 1991</a> to strengthen federal civil rights legislation</p> <p><strong>August 20, 1996</strong><br/> Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law</p> </blockquote> <p>And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>So the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.</p> <p>And I’m tired of the recitation that <a href="http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/">Southern Democrats became racist Republicans</a> and took those tendencies with them. Even today, it never takes long for a Democrat to play the race card purely for political advantage.</p></blockquote>
Abraham Lincoln, Al Gore, and America: DEMOCRATS
 HARRY TRUMAMARGARETBANGER
 THE PARTY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
 FDR
 PLANNED PARENTHOOD
 ITHINE ONEMANG0OD SI ACCEP TO TALK
 REFUSED TO SUPPORT
 ANTI-LYNCHINGLAMS
 LBJ
 ANOTHER AS LONG ASHES NOT
 ANGGEROR CHINAMAN
 SENATORROBERTBYRD
 TO THEWOMANS
 BRANCHOFTHE KKK
 BILL CLINTON
 ON BYRD
 KLANSMAN
 I'LLHAVE THO SE
 V" G GERS VOTING
 DEMOCRATIC FOR
 200 YEARS
 I SHALLNEVER FIGHT
 IN THE ARMED FORCES
 TWITH ANEGROEBY MY
 SIDE
 HE WAS TRYING
 TO GETELE CTED
 BEING LIBERAL
 IGNORANCE oF HI
 WHEN EXCUSES AND STORY
 MATTER MORE THAN THE FACTS
 www.facebook.com/SockPuppetProphets
<p><a href="http://gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com/post/38361846083/prior-to-2010-the-following-is-what-readers-got" class="tumblr_blog">gop-tea-pub</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws</strong>, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.</p>
<p><strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.</strong> We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “explosive expose” bringing us all those facts <em>first, </em>so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…</p>
<p>While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, here’s an except from yet <a href="http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html">another</a> list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they <em>“are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws”</em>…</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>October 13, 1858</strong><br/> During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: <em>“I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”</em>; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee</p>
<p><strong>April 16, 1862<br/></strong> President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>July 17, 1862<br/></strong> Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes <a href="http://www.civilwarhome.com/confiscationact1862.htm">Confiscation Act</a> stating that slaves of the Confederacy <em>“shall be forever free”</em></p>
<p><strong>January 31, 1865</strong><br/> 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition</p>
<p><strong>April 8, 1865</strong><br/> 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition</p>
<p><strong>November 22, 1865<br/></strong> Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “<a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASblackcodes.htm">black codes</a>,” which institutionalized racial discrimination</p>
<p><strong>February 5, 1866</strong><br/> U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>April 9, 1866</strong><br/> Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1866.htm">Civil Rights Act of 1866</a>, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law</p>
<p><strong>May 10, 1866</strong><br/> U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no</p>
<p><strong>June 8, 1866</strong><br/> U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>January 8, 1867<br/></strong> Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.</p>
<p><strong>July 19, 1867</strong><br/> Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans</p>
<p><strong>March 30, 1868</strong><br/> Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: <em>“This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”</em></p>
<p><strong>September 12, 1868</strong><br/> Civil rights activist <a href="http://www.footstepsmagazine.com/issues/2004/09/2004-09-more.html">Tunis Campbell</a> and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>October 7, 1868</strong><br/> Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: <em>“This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”</em></p>
<p><strong>October 22, 1868</strong><br/> While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan</p>
<p><strong>December 10, 1869<br/></strong> Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office</p>
<p><strong>February 3, 1870</strong><br/> After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>May 31, 1870<br/></strong> President U.S. Grant signs <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_enforce.html">Republicans’ Enforcement Act</a>, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights</p>
<p><strong>June 22, 1870</strong><br/> Republican Congress creates <strong>U.S. Department of Justice</strong>, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South</p>
<p><strong>September 6, 1870</strong><br/> Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell</p>
<p><strong>February 28, 1871</strong><br/> Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters</p>
<p><strong>April 20, 1871</strong><br/> Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>October 10, 1871</strong><br/> Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands</p>
<p><strong>October 18, 1871</strong><br/> After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan</p>
<p><strong>November 18, 1872</strong><br/> Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for <em>“the Republican ticket, straight”</em></p>
<p><strong>January 17, 1874</strong><br/> Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government</p>
<p><strong>September 14, 1874</strong><br/> Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>March 1, 1875</strong><br/><a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1875.htm">Civil Rights Act of 1875</a>, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition</p>
<p><strong>January 10, 1878</strong><br/> U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong</p>
<p><strong>February 8, 1894</strong><br/> Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote</p>
<p><strong>January 15, 1901</strong><br/> Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>May 29, 1902</strong><br/> Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%</p>
<p><strong>February 12, 1909</strong><br/> On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP</p>
<p><strong>May 21, 1919</strong><br/> Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no</p>
<p><strong>August 18, 1920</strong><br/> Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures</p>
<p><strong>January 26, 1922</strong><br/> House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong><br/></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>June 2, 1924</strong><br/> Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans</p>
<p><strong>October 3, 1924</strong><br/> Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention</p>
<p><strong>June 12, 1929</strong><br/> First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country</p>
<p><strong>August 17, 1937</strong><br/> Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation</p>
<p><strong>June 24, 1940</strong><br/> Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>August 8, 1945</strong><br/> Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”</p>
<p><strong>September 30, 1953</strong><br/> Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education</p>
<p><strong>November 25, 1955</strong><br/> Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel</p>
<p><strong>March 12, 1956</strong><br/> Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation</p>
<p><strong>June 5, 1956</strong><br/> Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down <em>“blacks in the back of the bus”</em> law</p>
<p><strong>November 6, 1956</strong><br/> African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President</p>
<p><strong>September 9, 1957</strong><br/> President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>September 24, 1957</strong><br/> Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus">Orval Faubus</a> to integrate public schools</p>
<p><strong>May 6, 1960</strong><br/> President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats</p>
<p><strong>May 2, 1963</strong><br/> Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights</p>
<p><strong>September 29, 1963</strong><br/> Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School</p>
<p><strong>June 9, 1964</strong><br/> Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. <strong>That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… </strong>On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>June 10, 1964</strong><br/> Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.</p>
<p><strong>August 4, 1965</strong><br/> Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor</p>
<p><strong>February 19, 1976</strong><br/> President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII</p>
<p><strong>September 15, 1981</strong><br/> President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs</p>
<p><strong>June 29, 1982</strong><br/> President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act</p>
<p><strong>August 10, 1988</strong><br/> President Ronald Reagan signs <a href="http://www.children-of-the-camps.org/history/civilact.html">Civil Liberties Act of 1988</a>, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR</p>
<p><strong>November 21, 1991</strong><br/> President George H. W. Bush signs <a href="http://www.legalarchiver.org/civil.htm">Civil Rights Act of 1991</a> to strengthen federal civil rights legislation</p>
<p><strong>August 20, 1996</strong><br/> Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.</p>
<p>And I’m tired of the recitation that <a href="http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/">Southern Democrats became racist Republicans</a> and took those tendencies with them. Even today, it never takes long for a Democrat to play the race card purely for political advantage.</p></blockquote>

gop-tea-pub: Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button…. Democrats are unwa...

Advice, Being Alone, and Anaconda: VS DONT TREAD ON ME The Nazi Party The Tea Party 1. Nationalism 2. Authoritarianism 3. Social Darwinism 4. Indoctrination 5. Propaganda 6. Anti-Intellectualism 7. Militarism 8. Anti-Communism 1. Nationalism 2. Authoritarianism 3. Social Darwinism 4. Indoctrination 5. Propaganda 6. Anti-Intellectualism 7. Militarism 8. Anti-Communism ANY QUESTIONS? COM <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://lolingatliberals.tumblr.com/post/34657371599/back-in-the-day-youngins-used-to-go-on-memebase">lolingatliberals</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Back in the day, youngins used to go on Memebase to laugh at funny pictures of Cats wearing pieces of toast as helmets — Today, this same site also seems to offer the occasional bit of political advice to it’s 12-18 year old primary userbase.</p> <p>How lovely.</p> <p>But let’s take a look at what shit they are shoveling to our kids, yes?</p> <p><strong>1. Nationalism.</strong></p> <p>True. Both GOP members and the Nazis were nationalistic. But did both subscribe to a shared patriotism of the same land? This is important to consider because being nationalistic means absolutely nothing on it’s own. People who consider themselves patriotic generally are subscribing to the values that their nation has adopted as being representative of their own personal ideologies.</p> <p>Thus, being nationalistic means nothing on it’s own unless you factor in the principles that nation exhibits as a primary variable.</p> <p>Canadians are some of the most nationalistic people on the planet earth.. As were the Russians of the old Soviet Union. Are they much like Nazi Germany simply because of it?</p> <p><strong>2. Authoritarianism.</strong></p> <p>Defined by Wikipedia as:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, Nazi Germany was a one-party dictatorship run by Adolf Hitler. There was no declaration of rights signed by his Government, nor was any dissent allowed without harsh consequence.</p> <p>By contrast, the Tea Party is:</p> <ul><li>Anti-big Government, and,</li> <li>Pro-Constitution.</li> </ul><p>Those two factors alone disrupt this entire second point.. Both because the Tea Party favors limiting the authority of Government, and because their hyper Constitutionalism would never allow the infringement of the liberties granted within.</p> <p>Freedom of Speech, Faith, and Property are essential tenets to Republicanism.</p> <p>3. Social Darwinism.</p> <p>Social Darwinism is a theory based in the notion that environments shape the groups within those environments. Basically, ensuring that the group most capable of survival in that environment will ultimately inherit it.</p> <p>I don’t quite understand what this has to do with politics — But I am assuming the Liberals have taken a racial edge to this long-held component of biology. In that case, I’d simply laugh and remind them that it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, and ensured the Constitution [pesky little bugger] protected them to the full extent of which it protected every other person who stepped foot on American soil.</p> <p>The Democrats [confederacy] were responsible for the push for the dehumanization of non-whites, and formed the original KKK.</p> <p>Still — Somehow the Tea Party is racist for wanting to encourage the independence of every American citizen, and not perpetuate the emotional bondage of historical victimization and Government dependency of African-Americans and other minorities.</p> <p><strong>4. Indoctrination.</strong></p> <p>Because being a loathed minority political group is akin to indoctrination.</p> <p><em>[See: Projection]</em></p> <p>Mind you, I would dare ask a Liberal who, exactly, is not indoctrinated.. Most likely, their answer will include themselves, and anyone who thinks like themselves.. Which is a perfect segway intoooooo~</p> <p><strong>5. Propaganda.</strong></p> <p><img alt="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SRHrvWpaanI/AAAAAAAABvM/6QPre_iePHg/s400/obama_hope_progress_change.jpg" class="decoded" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SRHrvWpaanI/AAAAAAAABvM/6QPre_iePHg/s400/obama_hope_progress_change.jpg"/></p> <p>Propaganda simply means any biased information used to mislead others into viewing a group or person favorably or unfavorably. It is used by every company, group, political leader, ideology, etc… No one is exempt from the use of propaganda to attempt to sway others to see their point of view as being the ‘right’ point of view.</p> <p>The picture I am replying to is propaganda. It is pro-Liberalism in nature with the intention of attempting to sway it’s readers towards subscribing to the same paradigm it does.</p> <p>My blog is propaganda… Tumblr is propaganda.</p> <p>What Liberals argue about propaganda is a case study in how effective propaganda can be. They are so indoctrinated that they truly believe that their ideology isn’t one. They are without ideology. Their views are without bias. Their political subscription is simply the absolute best thing that no one but like-minded comrades seem to understand.</p> <p><strong>6. Anti-Intellectualism.</strong></p> <p>Define intellectualism, love.</p> <p><strong>7. Militarism.</strong></p> <p>Militarism is simply defined as believing in having a strong national defense system and military.</p> <p><em>How awful.</em></p> <p>I mean.. It’s just so capitalistic, you know? It’s not like anyone else has armies. We are just war mongering in supporting our troops and securing our borders.. And just meddling when we try to stop Governments from mass-slaughtering their own people overseas.</p> <p><strong>8. Anti Communism.</strong></p> <p>My favorite!</p> <p>The Nazis were Socialists. In fact, the word ‘Nazi’ is an abbreviation of the National <em>Socialist</em> Worker’s Party’s German title. The Nazis were not anti-Communism.. They were <em>anti-Soviet Union</em>.</p> <p>And yes.. The Tea Party, as all Conservatives, are anti Communism — But not without support, in this area! The 100,000,000+ people who died under Communist rule in only about 100 years are pretty anti-Communist, too.</p> <p><em>[Goddamn..]</em></p> </blockquote> <p>The original post is HILARIOUSLY stupid. I mean what even?</p>
Advice, Being Alone, and Anaconda: VS
 DONT TREAD ON ME
 The Nazi Party
 The Tea Party
 1. Nationalism
 2. Authoritarianism
 3. Social Darwinism
 4. Indoctrination
 5. Propaganda
 6. Anti-Intellectualism
 7. Militarism
 8. Anti-Communism
 1. Nationalism
 2. Authoritarianism
 3. Social Darwinism
 4. Indoctrination
 5. Propaganda
 6. Anti-Intellectualism
 7. Militarism
 8. Anti-Communism
 ANY QUESTIONS?
 COM
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://lolingatliberals.tumblr.com/post/34657371599/back-in-the-day-youngins-used-to-go-on-memebase">lolingatliberals</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Back in the day, youngins used to go on Memebase to laugh at funny pictures of Cats wearing pieces of toast as helmets — Today, this same site also seems to offer the occasional bit of political advice to it’s 12-18 year old primary userbase.</p>
<p>How lovely.</p>
<p>But let’s take a look at what shit they are shoveling to our kids, yes?</p>
<p><strong>1. Nationalism.</strong></p>
<p>True. Both GOP members and the Nazis were nationalistic. But did both subscribe to a shared patriotism of the same land? This is important to consider because being nationalistic means absolutely nothing on it’s own. People who consider themselves patriotic generally are subscribing to the values that their nation has adopted as being representative of their own personal ideologies.</p>
<p>Thus, being nationalistic means nothing on it’s own unless you factor in the principles that nation exhibits as a primary variable.</p>
<p>Canadians are some of the most nationalistic people on the planet earth.. As were the Russians of the old Soviet Union. Are they much like Nazi Germany simply because of it?</p>
<p><strong>2. Authoritarianism.</strong></p>
<p>Defined by Wikipedia as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, Nazi Germany was a one-party dictatorship run by Adolf Hitler. There was no declaration of rights signed by his Government, nor was any dissent allowed without harsh consequence.</p>
<p>By contrast, the Tea Party is:</p>
<ul><li>Anti-big Government, and,</li>
<li>Pro-Constitution.</li>
</ul><p>Those two factors alone disrupt this entire second point.. Both because the Tea Party favors limiting the authority of Government, and because their hyper Constitutionalism would never allow the infringement of the liberties granted within.</p>
<p>Freedom of Speech, Faith, and Property are essential tenets to Republicanism.</p>
<p>3. Social Darwinism.</p>
<p>Social Darwinism is a theory based in the notion that environments shape the groups within those environments. Basically, ensuring that the group most capable of survival in that environment will ultimately inherit it.</p>
<p>I don’t quite understand what this has to do with politics — But I am assuming the Liberals have taken a racial edge to this long-held component of biology. In that case, I’d simply laugh and remind them that it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, and ensured the Constitution [pesky little bugger] protected them to the full extent of which it protected every other person who stepped foot on American soil.</p>
<p>The Democrats [confederacy] were responsible for the push for the dehumanization of non-whites, and formed the original KKK.</p>
<p>Still — Somehow the Tea Party is racist for wanting to encourage the independence of every American citizen, and not perpetuate the emotional bondage of historical victimization and Government dependency of African-Americans and other minorities.</p>
<p><strong>4. Indoctrination.</strong></p>
<p>Because being a loathed minority political group is akin to indoctrination.</p>
<p><em>[See: Projection]</em></p>
<p>Mind you, I would dare ask a Liberal who, exactly, is not indoctrinated.. Most likely, their answer will include themselves, and anyone who thinks like themselves.. Which is a perfect segway intoooooo~</p>
<p><strong>5. Propaganda.</strong></p>
<p><img alt="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SRHrvWpaanI/AAAAAAAABvM/6QPre_iePHg/s400/obama_hope_progress_change.jpg" class="decoded" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_baOacp0B_V4/SRHrvWpaanI/AAAAAAAABvM/6QPre_iePHg/s400/obama_hope_progress_change.jpg"/></p>
<p>Propaganda simply means any biased information used to mislead others into viewing a group or person favorably or unfavorably. It is used by every company, group, political leader, ideology, etc… No one is exempt from the use of propaganda to attempt to sway others to see their point of view as being the ‘right’ point of view.</p>
<p>The picture I am replying to is propaganda. It is pro-Liberalism in nature with the intention of attempting to sway it’s readers towards subscribing to the same paradigm it does.</p>
<p>My blog is propaganda… Tumblr is propaganda.</p>
<p>What Liberals argue about propaganda is a case study in how effective propaganda can be. They are so indoctrinated that they truly believe that their ideology isn’t one. They are without ideology. Their views are without bias. Their political subscription is simply the absolute best thing that no one but like-minded comrades seem to understand.</p>
<p><strong>6. Anti-Intellectualism.</strong></p>
<p>Define intellectualism, love.</p>
<p><strong>7. Militarism.</strong></p>
<p>Militarism is simply defined as believing in having a strong national defense system and military.</p>
<p><em>How awful.</em></p>
<p>I mean.. It’s just so capitalistic, you know? It’s not like anyone else has armies. We are just war mongering in supporting our troops and securing our borders.. And just meddling when we try to stop Governments from mass-slaughtering their own people overseas.</p>
<p><strong>8. Anti Communism.</strong></p>
<p>My favorite!</p>
<p>The Nazis were Socialists. In fact, the word ‘Nazi’ is an abbreviation of the National <em>Socialist</em> Worker’s Party’s German title. The Nazis were not anti-Communism.. They were <em>anti-Soviet Union</em>.</p>
<p>And yes.. The Tea Party, as all Conservatives, are anti Communism — But not without support, in this area! The 100,000,000+ people who died under Communist rule in only about 100 years are pretty anti-Communist, too.</p>
<p><em>[Goddamn..]</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The original post is HILARIOUSLY stupid. I mean what even?</p>

lolingatliberals: Back in the day, youngins used to go on Memebase to laugh at funny pictures of Cats wearing pieces of toast as helmets — ...