🔥 Popular | Latest

youstillhateblacktranswomen: feamir: ithelpstodream: bringing this one back When I went to see Tangled with my family, I was terrified of having to talk about the movie afterwards because I related so much to Rapunzel, and I was sure my mom would hate the movie because it was so obvious that she was exactly like mother gothel. So when mom asked me afterwards if I liked it I gave a tepid non-answer. But then my mom started talking about how she loved the movie! And it slowly dawned on me that she also saw mother gothel as evil and abusive, but somehow didn’t make the connection that she and her were the same. My mom even made a comment to the effect of how, like rapunzel’s real mom, her love for me would always triumph or whatever. And she didn’t get it! She didn’t see the similarities of how she locked me away in the house, or how she kept me under the tightest supervision under the guise of keeping me safe. I spent the entire mother knows best song stealing glances at her next to me in the theater just waiting for her to drag us out of the movie because she couldn’t stand to have her “love” portrayed as evil. And she didn’t see how the fact that she created her identity completely around being a mother and nothing else was like mother gothel’s dependency on rapunzel’s magic hair. It was only after seeing her positive reaction to the movie, that I really understood the meaning of the phrase “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil. “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil. : Megan Greenwell @megreenwell after seeing 'get out' in a very white crowd, all of us cheering wildly for chris, i keep remembering this, from elif batuman's 'the idiot. recognize it and laugh. I found myself remembering the day in kindergarten whe the teachers showed us Dumbo: a Disney movie about a puny, weind looking circus elephant that everyone made fun of. As the story u- folded, I realized to my amazement that all the kids in the class, even the bullies, the ones who despised and tormented the weak and the ugly, were rooting against Dumbo's tormentors. Over and over thry laughed and cheered, both when Dumbo succeeded and when biu things happened to the bullies. But they're you, I thought to myel. How did they not know? They didn't know. It was astounding, im astounding truth. Everyone thougbt they were Dumbo. Again and again I saw the phenomenon repeated. The mosta trary and tyrannical girls, the ones who started secret clubs to ostr youstillhateblacktranswomen: feamir: ithelpstodream: bringing this one back When I went to see Tangled with my family, I was terrified of having to talk about the movie afterwards because I related so much to Rapunzel, and I was sure my mom would hate the movie because it was so obvious that she was exactly like mother gothel. So when mom asked me afterwards if I liked it I gave a tepid non-answer. But then my mom started talking about how she loved the movie! And it slowly dawned on me that she also saw mother gothel as evil and abusive, but somehow didn’t make the connection that she and her were the same. My mom even made a comment to the effect of how, like rapunzel’s real mom, her love for me would always triumph or whatever. And she didn’t get it! She didn’t see the similarities of how she locked me away in the house, or how she kept me under the tightest supervision under the guise of keeping me safe. I spent the entire mother knows best song stealing glances at her next to me in the theater just waiting for her to drag us out of the movie because she couldn’t stand to have her “love” portrayed as evil. And she didn’t see how the fact that she created her identity completely around being a mother and nothing else was like mother gothel’s dependency on rapunzel’s magic hair. It was only after seeing her positive reaction to the movie, that I really understood the meaning of the phrase “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil. “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil.

youstillhateblacktranswomen: feamir: ithelpstodream: bringing this one back When I went to see Tangled with my family, I was terrified...

Save
youstillhateblacktranswomen: feamir: ithelpstodream: bringing this one back When I went to see Tangled with my family, I was terrified of having to talk about the movie afterwards because I related so much to Rapunzel, and I was sure my mom would hate the movie because it was so obvious that she was exactly like mother gothel. So when mom asked me afterwards if I liked it I gave a tepid non-answer. But then my mom started talking about how she loved the movie! And it slowly dawned on me that she also saw mother gothel as evil and abusive, but somehow didn’t make the connection that she and her were the same. My mom even made a comment to the effect of how, like rapunzel’s real mom, her love for me would always triumph or whatever. And she didn’t get it! She didn’t see the similarities of how she locked me away in the house, or how she kept me under the tightest supervision under the guise of keeping me safe. I spent the entire mother knows best song stealing glances at her next to me in the theater just waiting for her to drag us out of the movie because she couldn’t stand to have her “love” portrayed as evil. And she didn’t see how the fact that she created her identity completely around being a mother and nothing else was like mother gothel’s dependency on rapunzel’s magic hair. It was only after seeing her positive reaction to the movie, that I really understood the meaning of the phrase “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil. “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil. : Megan Greenwell @megreenwell after seeing 'get out' in a very white crowd, all of us cheering wildly for chris, i keep remembering this, from elif batuman's 'the idiot. recognize it and laugh. I found myself remembering the day in kindergarten whe the teachers showed us Dumbo: a Disney movie about a puny, weind looking circus elephant that everyone made fun of. As the story u- folded, I realized to my amazement that all the kids in the class, even the bullies, the ones who despised and tormented the weak and the ugly, were rooting against Dumbo's tormentors. Over and over thry laughed and cheered, both when Dumbo succeeded and when biu things happened to the bullies. But they're you, I thought to myel. How did they not know? They didn't know. It was astounding, im astounding truth. Everyone thougbt they were Dumbo. Again and again I saw the phenomenon repeated. The mosta trary and tyrannical girls, the ones who started secret clubs to ostr youstillhateblacktranswomen: feamir: ithelpstodream: bringing this one back When I went to see Tangled with my family, I was terrified of having to talk about the movie afterwards because I related so much to Rapunzel, and I was sure my mom would hate the movie because it was so obvious that she was exactly like mother gothel. So when mom asked me afterwards if I liked it I gave a tepid non-answer. But then my mom started talking about how she loved the movie! And it slowly dawned on me that she also saw mother gothel as evil and abusive, but somehow didn’t make the connection that she and her were the same. My mom even made a comment to the effect of how, like rapunzel’s real mom, her love for me would always triumph or whatever. And she didn’t get it! She didn’t see the similarities of how she locked me away in the house, or how she kept me under the tightest supervision under the guise of keeping me safe. I spent the entire mother knows best song stealing glances at her next to me in the theater just waiting for her to drag us out of the movie because she couldn’t stand to have her “love” portrayed as evil. And she didn’t see how the fact that she created her identity completely around being a mother and nothing else was like mother gothel’s dependency on rapunzel’s magic hair. It was only after seeing her positive reaction to the movie, that I really understood the meaning of the phrase “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil. “everyone is the hero of their own story”. No one actually thinks they’re the villain, even if confronted with a painfully obvious rendering of their own actions done by someone they agree is rightly portrayed as evil.

youstillhateblacktranswomen: feamir: ithelpstodream: bringing this one back When I went to see Tangled with my family, I was terrifie...

Save
Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Fight the bump stock ban through the link in our bio. 2A bumpstock shallnotbeinfringed gunowners gunownersofamerica goa goasupporters: GOA NEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: JORDAN STEIN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS JORDAN.STEIN@GUNOWNERS.ORG 703-321-8585 December 18, 2018 For immediate release Gun owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Springfield, VA Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its Foundation (GOF) will be filing suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice to seek an injunction protecting gun owners from their illegal prohibition of bump stocks. Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America said, "As written, this case has important implications for gun owners since, in the coming days, an estimated half a million bump stock owners will have the difficult decision of either destroying or surrendering their valuable property or else risk felony prosecution. ATFs claim that it can rewrite Congressional law cannot pass legal muster. Agencies are not free to rewrite laws under the guise of 'interpretation' of a statute, especially where e law's meaning is clear. "The new ATF regulations would arbitrarily redefine bump stocks as 'machineguns and, down the road, could implicate the right to own AR-15's and many other lawfully owned semi-automatic firearms," Pratt continued. "ATF's new bump stock regulation clearly violates federal law, as bump stocks do not qualify as machineguns under the federal statute." For more information about the suit, or GOA and GOF's recommendation for bump stock owners, please see here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesmen, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over 1.5 million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA's Newsroom. Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Fight the bump stock ban through the link in our bio. 2A bumpstock shallnotbeinfringed gunowners gunownersofamerica goa goasupporters

Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban Fight the bump stock ban through the link in our bio. 2A bumpstoc...

Save
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. : 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.
Save
imaginedsoldier: the-tired-tenor: tankies: Me: *crying* Alexa: This seems sad, now playing Despacito Y’all need to have a greater degree of 1- healthy suspicion in Alexa and corporate surveillance devices personal assistants, and 2- understanding of how dangerous this kind of algorithm is in the hands of a multinational company (and anyone for that matter.)  To begin with, that data is both available for sale and able to be subpoenaed by the government. Alexa’s records and recordings have already been used in criminal trials. In the US, a digital record of your emotional patterns can be used to deny you housing, jobs, and to rule on your ability to exercise your basic rights. Consider that psychiatric stigma and misdiagnosis can already be wielded against you in legal disputes and the notion of a listening device capable of identifying signs of distress for the purpose of marketing to you should be made more clearly concerning.  Moreover we have already seen the use of algorithms like this on Facebook and other “self-reporting” (read: user input) sites capable of identifying the onset of a manic episode [1] [2] [3], which have been subsequently been linked to identifying vulnerable (high-spending) periods to target ads at these users, perhaps most famously in selling tickets to Vegas (identified in a TedTalk by  techno-sociological scholar Zeynep Tufekci where she more generally discusses algorithms and how they shape our online experiences to suggest and reinforce biases).  The notes on this post are super concerning- we are being marketed to under the guise of having our emotional needs attended to by the same people who inflicted that emptiness on us, and everyone is just memeing. : Kate Crawford @katecrawford Following Meanwhile, Amazon's latest patent is for Alexa to detect when people are sick, bored or unhappy. "Alexa would listen out for if users are crying and then class them as experiencing an "emotional abnormality telegraph.co.uk/technology/201 132 130 Alexa, "cough I'm hung sniffle 120 100 Would you lke a recipe for chicken soup? No, thanks 134 Ok, I can find you something else. By the way, would you like o order cough drops with 1 hour delivery? That wouki be awesome Thanks for asking! 110 No probiem. Pil email you an order confirmation. Feel better! 7:54 AM 10 Oct 2018 570 Retweets 655 Likes imaginedsoldier: the-tired-tenor: tankies: Me: *crying* Alexa: This seems sad, now playing Despacito Y’all need to have a greater degree of 1- healthy suspicion in Alexa and corporate surveillance devices personal assistants, and 2- understanding of how dangerous this kind of algorithm is in the hands of a multinational company (and anyone for that matter.)  To begin with, that data is both available for sale and able to be subpoenaed by the government. Alexa’s records and recordings have already been used in criminal trials. In the US, a digital record of your emotional patterns can be used to deny you housing, jobs, and to rule on your ability to exercise your basic rights. Consider that psychiatric stigma and misdiagnosis can already be wielded against you in legal disputes and the notion of a listening device capable of identifying signs of distress for the purpose of marketing to you should be made more clearly concerning.  Moreover we have already seen the use of algorithms like this on Facebook and other “self-reporting” (read: user input) sites capable of identifying the onset of a manic episode [1] [2] [3], which have been subsequently been linked to identifying vulnerable (high-spending) periods to target ads at these users, perhaps most famously in selling tickets to Vegas (identified in a TedTalk by  techno-sociological scholar Zeynep Tufekci where she more generally discusses algorithms and how they shape our online experiences to suggest and reinforce biases).  The notes on this post are super concerning- we are being marketed to under the guise of having our emotional needs attended to by the same people who inflicted that emptiness on us, and everyone is just memeing.

imaginedsoldier: the-tired-tenor: tankies: Me: *crying* Alexa: This seems sad, now playing Despacito Y’all need to have a greater de...

Save
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! : 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!
Save
veronicasanders: houseoftombombadil: The RNC sent me a notice of official census material that was actually a fundraiser for the republican candidates running in the midterms. The paperwork was presented as being an official document required to be filled out by law, but it was patently false. This is corruption. This is meant to deceive people into giving data and money to a political party under the guise of nonpartisan census data. This undermines trust in the census, local government, and the democratic process. This is beyond disgusting, and I’m mailing back the form to tell the RNC how I really feel about their bullshit. Signal boost. LOOK OUT FOR THIS BULLSHIT! : 2018 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CENSUS Congressional Datrict Masount Docurrent Tracking Code: N18PM113 SECOND NOTICE ent a 1 -you never Never agan DRNER EXCLUGNELY TO be qv eshon DOMESTKC Official census docue otart ecoronic issn a " missile defense shield" for our nation to protect us from future n? 6. Should the U.S. take a more muscular attitude toward Russia and should be guaranteed the right to choose their own 7. Do you agree that our federal government must go all out to combat Yes O No No Opinion missile threats? 15. Do you believe more federal laws that impede individuals' Second Amendment rights are the proper response to gun violence in our natio D Yes □No □ No Opinion China as they move to establish themselves as military and economic 16. Do you agree that in response to the Department of Veterans Affairs No Opinion veterans that t doctor and have full access to care outside the VA? cyberattacks on our nation's government, businesses, and infrastructure? □Yes O No Opinion D No Opinion SECTION V- CERTIFICATION AND REPLY 1. Can the Republican National Committee count on your help to deliver By the ake America na wnen hehinkherefitling out the US □$100 $500 $1,000 Other $ the enclosed 2018 Congressional Please chec employed District Census Contributions to the Republican National Committee are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited. To have a direct impact you may also contribute to the Republican National Committee while online at www.GOP.com/Census2018 Please make your personal check payable to: RNC 310 First Street SE . Washington, D C 20 or 43017 2018 Congressional District Census Commissioned by the Republican Party Ronna McDaniel Chairwoman March 30, 2018 Dear Ms. Stone Enacting President Trump's agenda is going to take a massive grassroots effort all across America. It is a battle we m st win. And we must maintain Republican control of Congress to do it That is why an the irw e Rep blican Nationa concerned that you ha namenl sent to you a the request of resicent Tump. DOCUMENT that was regist few being mailed into Missoun's 3rd Congressional District. Enclosed is your official 2018 name as a representatve of Saint Charles was one of the select Ms. Stone, I am sendir other copy because your registered Census CONGRESSİONAL DISTI CT CENSUS DOCUMENT registered CODE #NISPH is in your e largest Congressional District Census ouP y en for a mideelection and we nesd your personal involver ent to make this essential project uccessiul. Compland returning your 1018 Census document is en trl to our abilit urrnt serch shos that the nation ide ong essional District Census we lave been ng President Trump's agenda and will be a deciding factor in who gether the critanformation and voter profiles needed to target condud ing is he pitha RN audiend es with t wins in November But withour nation so politically divided and the Dşmocrats and mainstream media spreading ving to be difficult to et the real facts fak neys about President Trump and his Presidency teso vecollect and update o sae o what Doald Trump has acc m the co ntry. That is whsr hattyou etu your Census istrict and inmaio on yoers ingto Make America em Ms. Stone, your participation in this national effort will provide us with the detailed data we oncerning Missouri's3 os orta w the liberal empcrats in Congress and the radical speci interegrou ps a d thr left-wing allies in the media tht advance is legisla agenda has the supp e Amer can pe your 2 ,186 (AGRESSIONATBISİ CENSUS and do act now to c your best to get it back to me at RNC Headquarters by April 30th. lease include a generous cont buton of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 d to help underwteeof this proAnd is hance our voter ethe Your grassroots operaton Ap ter tUI T all Anericans, and elect vels of government wI upper Presdt rm s eftrts I'm making this special appeal for your financial help because we cannot continue to ake major progress in taking our country back as long as the Democrats and the liberal media ent our message and hold President Trump's Presidency hostage. It is absolutely vital isrepres that we have the funds to fight back- and most important-maintain our Republican Over, please 310 First Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 1-800-445-5768 www.GOP com veronicasanders: houseoftombombadil: The RNC sent me a notice of official census material that was actually a fundraiser for the republican candidates running in the midterms. The paperwork was presented as being an official document required to be filled out by law, but it was patently false. This is corruption. This is meant to deceive people into giving data and money to a political party under the guise of nonpartisan census data. This undermines trust in the census, local government, and the democratic process. This is beyond disgusting, and I’m mailing back the form to tell the RNC how I really feel about their bullshit. Signal boost. LOOK OUT FOR THIS BULLSHIT!
Save
<p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybill</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://tiddynerd.tumblr.com/post/172964801004/military-strikes-are-the-same-thing-as-military" class="tumblr_blog">tiddynerd</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">&gt;military strikes are the same thing as military training</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320" data-tumblr-attribution="loopedgifs:MslXj_kAhfMttilamF2mkQ:ZUawci2WdTCtS"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf3b0d142b83060fb444601fe1243fac/tumblr_p6h4vgdy4Y1v1fssvo1_400.gif" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320"/></figure></blockquote> <p>You’re literally a moron. Strikes and combat has been going on since 2013. </p></blockquote> <p>“We bombed this inhabited city as training u guise”</p>: Bernie Sanders @SenSanders It is Congress, not the president, which has the constitutional responsibility for making war. The international community must uphold the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, but it is unclear how Trump's illegal and unauthorized strikes on Syria achieve that goal. OccupyDemocratsLogic @DemocratsLogic Logic Replying to @SenSanders You when Obama was president. News> World Bernie Sanders Says US 'Kill List' Legal, Backs Troops in Syria U.S. senator Bernie Sanders said he supports sending troops to Syria to train and equip forces fighting the Islamic State group. Photo: Reuters <p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybill</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://tiddynerd.tumblr.com/post/172964801004/military-strikes-are-the-same-thing-as-military" class="tumblr_blog">tiddynerd</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">&gt;military strikes are the same thing as military training</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320" data-tumblr-attribution="loopedgifs:MslXj_kAhfMttilamF2mkQ:ZUawci2WdTCtS"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf3b0d142b83060fb444601fe1243fac/tumblr_p6h4vgdy4Y1v1fssvo1_400.gif" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320"/></figure></blockquote> <p>You’re literally a moron. Strikes and combat has been going on since 2013. </p></blockquote> <p>“We bombed this inhabited city as training u guise”</p>

<p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybi...

Save
<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>: 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>
Save
<p><a href="http://a-salty-scythe-meister.tumblr.com/post/170878458651/libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">a-salty-scythe-meister</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/170878439669/friendly-neighborhood-patriarch-woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://friendly-neighborhood-patriarch.tumblr.com/post/170875525117/woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-patriarch</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">woke Shatner</p></blockquote> <p>Honestly? This speaks to how toxic and awful it is that these “movements“ keep taking these innocuous concepts and perverting them while still being able to hide behind the intended meaning of the concepts and make you seem like the bad guy for opposing them. “What’s wrong social justice? Don’t you want justice for all people? What’s wrong with feminism? Don’t you want equality for women?” And no matter how far beyond the scope of those purported ideals these movements reach, they will always hide behind that argument.</p></blockquote> <p>Watch everyone begin to turn on Shatner</p></blockquote> <p>Oh honey they been done that.</p>: William Shatner @WilliamShatner I have no problem with social justice l have a problem with the toxicity of those who do things under the guise of social justice when in reality it's them oppressing others for their own selfish, personal agendas Dodger @E_Dodgero Replying to@WilliamShatner Why are you so opposed to social justice? 11:54 pm 8 Feb 2018 7,015 Retweets 22,253 Likes <p><a href="http://a-salty-scythe-meister.tumblr.com/post/170878458651/libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">a-salty-scythe-meister</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/170878439669/friendly-neighborhood-patriarch-woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://friendly-neighborhood-patriarch.tumblr.com/post/170875525117/woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-patriarch</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">woke Shatner</p></blockquote> <p>Honestly? This speaks to how toxic and awful it is that these “movements“ keep taking these innocuous concepts and perverting them while still being able to hide behind the intended meaning of the concepts and make you seem like the bad guy for opposing them. “What’s wrong social justice? Don’t you want justice for all people? What’s wrong with feminism? Don’t you want equality for women?” And no matter how far beyond the scope of those purported ideals these movements reach, they will always hide behind that argument.</p></blockquote> <p>Watch everyone begin to turn on Shatner</p></blockquote> <p>Oh honey they been done that.</p>

<p><a href="http://a-salty-scythe-meister.tumblr.com/post/170878458651/libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">a-salty-scythe-meister</a>:</p>...

Save
<p><a href="http://friendly-neighborhood-patriarch.tumblr.com/post/170875525117/woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-patriarch</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">woke Shatner</p></blockquote> <p>Honestly? This speaks to how toxic and awful it is that these “movements“ keep taking these innocuous concepts and perverting them while still being able to hide behind the intended meaning of the concepts and make you seem like the bad guy for opposing them. “What’s wrong social justice? Don’t you want justice for all people? What’s wrong with feminism? Don’t you want equality for women?” And no matter how far beyond the scope of those purported ideals these movements reach, they will always hide behind that argument.</p>: William Shatner @WilliamShatner I have no problem with social justice l have a problem with the toxicity of those who do things under the guise of social justice when in reality it's them oppressing others for their own selfish, personal agendas Dodger @E_Dodgero Replying to@WilliamShatner Why are you so opposed to social justice? 11:54 pm 8 Feb 2018 7,015 Retweets 22,253 Likes <p><a href="http://friendly-neighborhood-patriarch.tumblr.com/post/170875525117/woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-patriarch</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">woke Shatner</p></blockquote> <p>Honestly? This speaks to how toxic and awful it is that these “movements“ keep taking these innocuous concepts and perverting them while still being able to hide behind the intended meaning of the concepts and make you seem like the bad guy for opposing them. “What’s wrong social justice? Don’t you want justice for all people? What’s wrong with feminism? Don’t you want equality for women?” And no matter how far beyond the scope of those purported ideals these movements reach, they will always hide behind that argument.</p>

<p><a href="http://friendly-neighborhood-patriarch.tumblr.com/post/170875525117/woke-shatner" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-p...

Save
just-tea-thanks: venom1977: Take a moment to read this so you can fully understand. How it all started, and how we got here. (Unfortunately, the people that could learn something by reading this likely won’t bother). Did you know this? Aug 14, 2016- Colin Kaepernick “sits” for the national anthem…..and no one noticed. Aug 20th, 2016- Colin again “sits”, and again, no one noticed. Aug 26th, 2016- Colin “sits” and this time he is met with a level of vitriol unseen against an athlete. Even the future President of the United States took shots at him while on the campaign trail. Colin went on to explain his protest had NOTHING to with the military, but he felt it hard to stand for a flag that didn’t treat people of color fairly. Then on on Aug 30th, 2016 Nate Boyer, a former Army Green Beret turned NFL long snapper, penned an open letter to Colin in the Army Times. In it he expressed how Colin’s sitting affected him. Then a strange thing happened. Colin was able to do what most Americans to date have not… He listened. In his letter, Mr. Boyer writes: “I’m not judging you for standing up for what you believe in. It’s your inalienable right. What you are doing takes a lot of courage, and I’d be lying if I said I knew what it was like to walk around in your shoes. I’ve never had to deal with prejudice because of the color of my skin, and for me to say I can relate to what you’ve gone through is as ignorant as someone who’s never been in a combat zone telling me they understand what it’s like to go to war. Even though my initial reaction to your protest was one of anger, I’m trying to listen to what you’re saying and why you’re doing it.” Mr. Boyer goes on to write “There are already plenty people fighting fire with fire, and it’s just not helping anyone or anything. So I’m just going to keep listening, with an open mind. I look forward to the day you’re inspired to once again stand during our national anthem. I’ll be standing right there next to you.” Empathy and understanding was shown by Mr. Boyer………and Mr. Kaepernick reciprocated. Colin invited Nate to San Diego where the two had a 90 minute discussion and Nate proposed Colin kneel instead of sit. But why kneel? In a military funeral, after the flag is taken off the casket of the fallen military member, it is smartly folded 13 times and then presented to the parents, spouse or child of the fallen member by a fellow service member while KNEELING. The two decided that kneeling for the flag would symbolize his reverence for those that paid the ultimate sacrifice while still allowing Colin to peacefully protest the injustices he saw. Empathy, not zealotry under the guise of patriotism, is the only way meaningful discussion can be had. Mr. Kaepernick listened to all of you that say he disrespects the military and extended an olive branch to find a peace. When will America listen to him? We can all learn from this backstory. The truth often lies in the middle. Seek to learn the opposing side’s point. FUCKING THANK YOU! I HAVE BEEN SCREAMING THIS OUT TO CIVILIANS “OFFENDED” ON SMs BEHALF FOR WEEKS! : just-tea-thanks: venom1977: Take a moment to read this so you can fully understand. How it all started, and how we got here. (Unfortunately, the people that could learn something by reading this likely won’t bother). Did you know this? Aug 14, 2016- Colin Kaepernick “sits” for the national anthem…..and no one noticed. Aug 20th, 2016- Colin again “sits”, and again, no one noticed. Aug 26th, 2016- Colin “sits” and this time he is met with a level of vitriol unseen against an athlete. Even the future President of the United States took shots at him while on the campaign trail. Colin went on to explain his protest had NOTHING to with the military, but he felt it hard to stand for a flag that didn’t treat people of color fairly. Then on on Aug 30th, 2016 Nate Boyer, a former Army Green Beret turned NFL long snapper, penned an open letter to Colin in the Army Times. In it he expressed how Colin’s sitting affected him. Then a strange thing happened. Colin was able to do what most Americans to date have not… He listened. In his letter, Mr. Boyer writes: “I’m not judging you for standing up for what you believe in. It’s your inalienable right. What you are doing takes a lot of courage, and I’d be lying if I said I knew what it was like to walk around in your shoes. I’ve never had to deal with prejudice because of the color of my skin, and for me to say I can relate to what you’ve gone through is as ignorant as someone who’s never been in a combat zone telling me they understand what it’s like to go to war. Even though my initial reaction to your protest was one of anger, I’m trying to listen to what you’re saying and why you’re doing it.” Mr. Boyer goes on to write “There are already plenty people fighting fire with fire, and it’s just not helping anyone or anything. So I’m just going to keep listening, with an open mind. I look forward to the day you’re inspired to once again stand during our national anthem. I’ll be standing right there next to you.” Empathy and understanding was shown by Mr. Boyer………and Mr. Kaepernick reciprocated. Colin invited Nate to San Diego where the two had a 90 minute discussion and Nate proposed Colin kneel instead of sit. But why kneel? In a military funeral, after the flag is taken off the casket of the fallen military member, it is smartly folded 13 times and then presented to the parents, spouse or child of the fallen member by a fellow service member while KNEELING. The two decided that kneeling for the flag would symbolize his reverence for those that paid the ultimate sacrifice while still allowing Colin to peacefully protest the injustices he saw. Empathy, not zealotry under the guise of patriotism, is the only way meaningful discussion can be had. Mr. Kaepernick listened to all of you that say he disrespects the military and extended an olive branch to find a peace. When will America listen to him? We can all learn from this backstory. The truth often lies in the middle. Seek to learn the opposing side’s point. FUCKING THANK YOU! I HAVE BEEN SCREAMING THIS OUT TO CIVILIANS “OFFENDED” ON SMs BEHALF FOR WEEKS!
Save
History story time: Okay people, history-fail story-time cindehella artyowl01 So back in the 1780's when our country was still figuring crap out and ol' George Washington was just elected president, G.W decided to send a letter to Congress along the lines of Looking forward to working with you all, this will be exciting! Congress, not wanting to slight the president and also trying to express their own enthusiasm, sent back a letter along the lines of "Glad you're excited, we are also looking forward to working with you!" Then George sends another letter back saying something like "Cool cool bros, glad you're just as excited as am, and Congress, again not wanting to be awkward or just ignore the PRESIDENT sent back ANOTHER letter saying some dumb crap that was probably along the lines of "Glad you're excited that we're excited that you're excited Democracy at its finest And while this in itself is funny, that is not even the best part. George Washington, while being powerful, was not extremely eloquent, and at this point was also aging, busy, and overall very stressed about his new position (which he did not want in the first place). So he asked his old friend James Madison, who had a much better way with words, to write the first note to Congress. Good old James Madison, wanting to oblige his friend, did just that and composed the note to Congress. Now, J-Mads was himself a member of Congress, so when the note arrived, he was in session to hear "Washington's" letter read Cngress got nervous and worried about who could possibly compose a formal and acceptable letter back to Washington. Who better than his old friend, James Madison? So Jimmy, being obliging wrote the response. When Washington received the reply, he once again asked his friend to write the response And who did Congress choose to write their final letter? That's right. ..none other than Jimmy-James-Madison himself. So James Madison, future 4th president of the United States, wrote himself 4 letters under the guise of George Washington and the first Congress of the U.S. And he was too embarrassed to admit it catfish of the millenium History story time

History story time

Save
History story time: Okay people, history-fail story-time... cindehella; artyowl01: So back in the 1780's when our country was still figuring crap out and ol' George Washington was just elected president, G.W decided to send a letter to Congress along the lines of 'Looking forward to working with you all, this will be exciting!" Congress, not wanting to slight the president and also trying to express their own enthusiasm sent back a letter along the lines of "Glad you're excited, we are also looking forward to working with you!" Then George sends another letter back saying something like "Cool cool bros, glad you're just as excited as I am," and Congress, again not wanting to be awkward or just ignore the PRESIDENT, sent back ANOTHER letter saying some dumb crap that was probably along the lines of "Glad you're excited that we're excited that you're excited. Democracy at its finest And while this in itself is funny, that is not even the best part George Washington, while being powerful, was not extremely eloquent, and at this point was also aging, busy, and overall very stressed about his new position (which he did not want in the first place) So he asked his old friend James Madison, who had a much better way with words, to write the first note to Congress Good old James Madison, wanting to oblige his friend, did just that and composed the note to Congress. Now, J-Mads was himself a member of Congress, so when the note arrived, he was in session to hear "Washington's" letter read Congress got nervous and worried about who could possibly compose a formal and acceptable letter back to Washington. Who better than his old friend, James Madison? So Jimmy, being obliging, wrote the response. When Washington received the reply, he once again asked his friend to write the response. And who did Congress choose to write their final letter? That's right.none other than Jimmy-James-Madison himself So James Madison, future 4th president of the United States, wrote himself 4 letters under the guise of George Washington and the first Congress of the U.S. And he was too embarrassed to admit it catfish of the millenium History story time

History story time

Save
missing-wall-e: needlesslydefiantwithtea: agentsokka: “Countless others have come before you, seeking weapons or weaknesses or battle strategies!” this is one of the truly brilliant things about this show. while most kids’ shows will have good vs evil conflict, atla has a war. a real war, between people, with all the moral greyness and points of view made clear. the fire nation isn’t evil: it’s a repressed country under the strict control of its ruler. we’re shown how history is altered and propaganda is taught as fact, so the people grow up moulded to hate all other nations. and then we get lines like this, which make us stop and think wait, is what the other nations are doing really right? after all, Ba Sing Se was supposed to be a haven, but turned out to be repressive and full of lies. in this case we know that Aang is justified, and we trust him to do what’s right because he has such high moral standards. then we get to the finale and all that is challenged again. it’s just a brilliant show guise. this show’s fucking flawless, okay? i just have so much love for atla  : YOU THINK YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON TO BELIEVE THEIR WAR WAS JUSTIFIED? missing-wall-e: needlesslydefiantwithtea: agentsokka: “Countless others have come before you, seeking weapons or weaknesses or battle strategies!” this is one of the truly brilliant things about this show. while most kids’ shows will have good vs evil conflict, atla has a war. a real war, between people, with all the moral greyness and points of view made clear. the fire nation isn’t evil: it’s a repressed country under the strict control of its ruler. we’re shown how history is altered and propaganda is taught as fact, so the people grow up moulded to hate all other nations. and then we get lines like this, which make us stop and think wait, is what the other nations are doing really right? after all, Ba Sing Se was supposed to be a haven, but turned out to be repressive and full of lies. in this case we know that Aang is justified, and we trust him to do what’s right because he has such high moral standards. then we get to the finale and all that is challenged again. it’s just a brilliant show guise. this show’s fucking flawless, okay? i just have so much love for atla 
Save
Double tap and tag a friend! ViewPreviousPost WATCH FULL VIDEO ON FACEBOOK! (Link in bio) SUBSCRIBE ON YOUTUBE! @conspiracyfiles Anonymous recently released a message warning of impending global war based on their observance of increased international tensions between allied countries and North Korea. But unlike past world wars... the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick. It will also be globally devastating, both on environmental and economical levels.” Anonymous delivers this unnerving forecast because of the recent collective actions of China, North Korea, Japan and the U.S., which they say allude to the "real story." "China has reportedly told its citizens living in North Korea to waste no time returning home," the group says in reference to the unprecedented message the Chinese Embassy in North Korea recently issued. Additionally, they call attention to statements made by Japanese government officials a few weeks ago. "The Japanese have told its citizens they will likely only have a ten-minute warning of impending nuclear strike against, but to find shelter in the most solid building they can find." The group also insinuates that the U.S. has preemptively placed 1250 troops in Australia, which they call a "strategic location in the Indian Ocean", under the guise of "rotational deployment" in anticipation of impending conflict. President Trump's recent meeting with Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, they say, is another preparatory action. “When President Trump starts reaching out to those like President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines to assure they are on the same page, one must start to wonder,” Anonymous says in the video. “However, even Duterte has advised the US to back away from Kim Jong Un.” (Comment your thoughts below👇🏼) @brantnanton ConspiracyFiles ConspiracyFiles2 Anonymous AnonymousWW3Warning WW3 CorruptGovernment WakeUpSheeple Sheeple CorporationSlayer Rothschild UncleSam UncleScam PopulationReduction Illuminati Killuminati Bilderberg NewWorldOrder ConspiracyFact Conspiracy ConspiracyTheory ConspiracyFact ConspiracyTheories ConspiracyFiles Follow back up page! @conspiracyfiles2: ANONYMOUS WARNIND FOLLOW @CONSPIRACYFILESC.Eide ube WORLD WAR3 Double tap and tag a friend! ViewPreviousPost WATCH FULL VIDEO ON FACEBOOK! (Link in bio) SUBSCRIBE ON YOUTUBE! @conspiracyfiles Anonymous recently released a message warning of impending global war based on their observance of increased international tensions between allied countries and North Korea. But unlike past world wars... the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick. It will also be globally devastating, both on environmental and economical levels.” Anonymous delivers this unnerving forecast because of the recent collective actions of China, North Korea, Japan and the U.S., which they say allude to the "real story." "China has reportedly told its citizens living in North Korea to waste no time returning home," the group says in reference to the unprecedented message the Chinese Embassy in North Korea recently issued. Additionally, they call attention to statements made by Japanese government officials a few weeks ago. "The Japanese have told its citizens they will likely only have a ten-minute warning of impending nuclear strike against, but to find shelter in the most solid building they can find." The group also insinuates that the U.S. has preemptively placed 1250 troops in Australia, which they call a "strategic location in the Indian Ocean", under the guise of "rotational deployment" in anticipation of impending conflict. President Trump's recent meeting with Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, they say, is another preparatory action. “When President Trump starts reaching out to those like President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines to assure they are on the same page, one must start to wonder,” Anonymous says in the video. “However, even Duterte has advised the US to back away from Kim Jong Un.” (Comment your thoughts below👇🏼) @brantnanton ConspiracyFiles ConspiracyFiles2 Anonymous AnonymousWW3Warning WW3 CorruptGovernment WakeUpSheeple Sheeple CorporationSlayer Rothschild UncleSam UncleScam PopulationReduction Illuminati Killuminati Bilderberg NewWorldOrder ConspiracyFact Conspiracy ConspiracyTheory ConspiracyFact ConspiracyTheories ConspiracyFiles Follow back up page! @conspiracyfiles2
Save
<p><a href="http://criticalconservative.tumblr.com/post/157199264005/proudblackconservative-criticalconservative" class="tumblr_blog">criticalconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://proudblackconservative.tumblr.com/post/157199101089/criticalconservative-i-dont-support-all-of-the" class="tumblr_blog">proudblackconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://criticalconservative.tumblr.com/post/157198730380" class="tumblr_blog">criticalconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>I don’t support all of the man in the video’s language (ie calling someone a retard). However, the message of the video is on point for today’s swastika melt down. </p></blockquote> <p>Here’s the real irony: that guy who started screaming at Piers Morgan claims “if the Germans had gotten hysterical they could’ve stopped Hitler” in defense for these ridiculous actions. No. Chances are if the Germans had acted anything like this Hitler would’ve been able to move further faster because he could easily discredit any detractors as a bunch of lunatics who fake hate crimes and make swastikas out of nothing. This kind of ludicrous, uninformed behavior is exactly what strengthens people like Trump and his supporters, rather than weakening them.</p></blockquote> <p>Absolutely. Plus, I hate to say it, but when Piers Morgan is on your side, you know it is bad. Having legitimate policy debates is different from screaming Nazi at anyone with a Republican bumper sticker. No one is going to take your concerns seriously and all it does is legitimize the people you oppose. Then we will get a bunch of Law and Order legislation under the guise of protecting us from crazy people and fake news.</p></blockquote> <p>Exactly. It&rsquo;s absolutely infuriating to be critical of Trump policy wise but have your concerns drowned out by the constant screaming and hysterics of people who aren&rsquo;t interested in actual discussion, but just in shutting down everyone who disagrees with them. When even liberals like Piers Morgan are shut down and relentlessly attacked just for saying &ldquo;hey guys, maybe we&rsquo;re overreacting a bit and this isn&rsquo;t the way to achieve the change we want&rdquo;, you know there&rsquo;s a problem.</p>: arah rerman Walking to get coffee saw these all over a sidewalk in the town I'm in. Is this an attempt at swastkas? Do neo nazis not have google? <p><a href="http://criticalconservative.tumblr.com/post/157199264005/proudblackconservative-criticalconservative" class="tumblr_blog">criticalconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://proudblackconservative.tumblr.com/post/157199101089/criticalconservative-i-dont-support-all-of-the" class="tumblr_blog">proudblackconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://criticalconservative.tumblr.com/post/157198730380" class="tumblr_blog">criticalconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>I don’t support all of the man in the video’s language (ie calling someone a retard). However, the message of the video is on point for today’s swastika melt down. </p></blockquote> <p>Here’s the real irony: that guy who started screaming at Piers Morgan claims “if the Germans had gotten hysterical they could’ve stopped Hitler” in defense for these ridiculous actions. No. Chances are if the Germans had acted anything like this Hitler would’ve been able to move further faster because he could easily discredit any detractors as a bunch of lunatics who fake hate crimes and make swastikas out of nothing. This kind of ludicrous, uninformed behavior is exactly what strengthens people like Trump and his supporters, rather than weakening them.</p></blockquote> <p>Absolutely. Plus, I hate to say it, but when Piers Morgan is on your side, you know it is bad. Having legitimate policy debates is different from screaming Nazi at anyone with a Republican bumper sticker. No one is going to take your concerns seriously and all it does is legitimize the people you oppose. Then we will get a bunch of Law and Order legislation under the guise of protecting us from crazy people and fake news.</p></blockquote> <p>Exactly. It&rsquo;s absolutely infuriating to be critical of Trump policy wise but have your concerns drowned out by the constant screaming and hysterics of people who aren&rsquo;t interested in actual discussion, but just in shutting down everyone who disagrees with them. When even liberals like Piers Morgan are shut down and relentlessly attacked just for saying &ldquo;hey guys, maybe we&rsquo;re overreacting a bit and this isn&rsquo;t the way to achieve the change we want&rdquo;, you know there&rsquo;s a problem.</p>
Save
shakisabell: Shakira’s article from TIME http://time.com/4665295/shakira-donald-trump-ban/ Shakira is so eloquent. An incomparable, caring star.: 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.
Save