🔥 Popular | Latest

beta-kindergarten: Because this is, for whatever reason being discussed again in the tags, here’s just another reminder to everyone, and especially to my fellow survivors who see themselves in Jasper: SU has /never/ been ambiguous regarding who was in control of malachite. It was undoubtedly Lapis up until SWI, and even then you could say she and Jasper were working together to fight the CGs. Abuse by definition NEEDS to have a power imbalance between the victim and abuser. Jasper was never allowed that power, while Lapis is always described as the one who was in control, therefore Lapis was the abuser and Jasper was the victim. Victims aren’t always good people. Jasper is very much a victim of circumstance, both from the war and from Malachite. Yes, she’s abusive, but towards the corrupted gems, and has yet to be given a chance to unlearn her toxic behaviors. She’s a messy victim, she’s aggressive and angry, and there are so many survivors who act like this; and guess what, they’re still victims. Having “ugly” symptoms and feeling affection for your abuser does NOT make you the abuser of the relationship. It doesn’t undermine your abuse and certainly doesn’t justify it, no matter what vitriol this fandom tries to spew at you because you see Jasper as the victim. Abusers aren’t always going to be your enemy. They aren’t always going to be bigger than you, or physically stronger. They can be friends or family or “beach summer fun buddies”. They can be nice sometimes and absolutely terrible other times. And they can also have traumas of their own. This doesn’t change or excuse the fact that they’re abusive. Lapis is this kind of abuser. She was the one holding the chains, the one who acknowledges her own power (and fears being placed in positions of control because of it), and the one who regrets her decisions and is trying to stop being abusive. Frankly I don’t care about protagonist centered morality enough to even consider Steven’s point of view regarding Malachite. I don’t care what the CGs in the show have to say about the situation because regardless of how much of a “terrible” person Jasper is, it’s presented clearly to us who was the one being held in chains against their will. I also cannot be bothered to care about your definitions of “lashing out” or, “self-blaming”. Lapis made her intentions painfully clear that this was for revenge and wanting to take out everything on someone. She doesn’t love the earth nor does she want to play nice with the CGs. So don’t even try to tell me this because I’m frankly just /tired/ of being reminded that you people don’t actually care about victims if our behaviors or coping mechanisms are “wrong” to you. Also, of the 2 years that I’ve been involved in this hell fandom I’ve yet to see Jasper fans attack the inboxes or posts of Lapis fans to the same extent that the reverse has been done. Jasper fans don’t spread ugly rumors about Rebecca Sugar’s abuse history either, so it’s pretty ironic that WE’RE the ones who condone abuse isn’t it? tl;dr: You’re honestly disgusting if you’ve EVER tried to make a victim feel bad for liking Jasper, and I sincerely hope you grow up some day and learn that it’s not worth it to harm real people and survivors for the sake of a cartoon. And if you’re a victim who relates to Jasper, believe me when I say you aren’t alone and you aren’t a bad person. Keep doing you. ✌️: NEW EPISODE CN CARTOETw I WAS TERRIBLE TO YOU. I LIKED TAKING EVERYTHING OUT ON YO.. beta-kindergarten: Because this is, for whatever reason being discussed again in the tags, here’s just another reminder to everyone, and especially to my fellow survivors who see themselves in Jasper: SU has /never/ been ambiguous regarding who was in control of malachite. It was undoubtedly Lapis up until SWI, and even then you could say she and Jasper were working together to fight the CGs. Abuse by definition NEEDS to have a power imbalance between the victim and abuser. Jasper was never allowed that power, while Lapis is always described as the one who was in control, therefore Lapis was the abuser and Jasper was the victim. Victims aren’t always good people. Jasper is very much a victim of circumstance, both from the war and from Malachite. Yes, she’s abusive, but towards the corrupted gems, and has yet to be given a chance to unlearn her toxic behaviors. She’s a messy victim, she’s aggressive and angry, and there are so many survivors who act like this; and guess what, they’re still victims. Having “ugly” symptoms and feeling affection for your abuser does NOT make you the abuser of the relationship. It doesn’t undermine your abuse and certainly doesn’t justify it, no matter what vitriol this fandom tries to spew at you because you see Jasper as the victim. Abusers aren’t always going to be your enemy. They aren’t always going to be bigger than you, or physically stronger. They can be friends or family or “beach summer fun buddies”. They can be nice sometimes and absolutely terrible other times. And they can also have traumas of their own. This doesn’t change or excuse the fact that they’re abusive. Lapis is this kind of abuser. She was the one holding the chains, the one who acknowledges her own power (and fears being placed in positions of control because of it), and the one who regrets her decisions and is trying to stop being abusive. Frankly I don’t care about protagonist centered morality enough to even consider Steven’s point of view regarding Malachite. I don’t care what the CGs in the show have to say about the situation because regardless of how much of a “terrible” person Jasper is, it’s presented clearly to us who was the one being held in chains against their will. I also cannot be bothered to care about your definitions of “lashing out” or, “self-blaming”. Lapis made her intentions painfully clear that this was for revenge and wanting to take out everything on someone. She doesn’t love the earth nor does she want to play nice with the CGs. So don’t even try to tell me this because I’m frankly just /tired/ of being reminded that you people don’t actually care about victims if our behaviors or coping mechanisms are “wrong” to you. Also, of the 2 years that I’ve been involved in this hell fandom I’ve yet to see Jasper fans attack the inboxes or posts of Lapis fans to the same extent that the reverse has been done. Jasper fans don’t spread ugly rumors about Rebecca Sugar’s abuse history either, so it’s pretty ironic that WE’RE the ones who condone abuse isn’t it? tl;dr: You’re honestly disgusting if you’ve EVER tried to make a victim feel bad for liking Jasper, and I sincerely hope you grow up some day and learn that it’s not worth it to harm real people and survivors for the sake of a cartoon. And if you’re a victim who relates to Jasper, believe me when I say you aren’t alone and you aren’t a bad person. Keep doing you. ✌️

beta-kindergarten: Because this is, for whatever reason being discussed again in the tags, here’s just another reminder to everyone, and...

Save
evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government) : CW CNN @CNN Follow European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes SULLDHONHS Sophia Chang Follow @sophchang "European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56 million. It took a long time for me to process that figure CNN @CNN European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @sophchang And to think, the world population in 1900 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5 billion I don't know what the world pop was like in 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE percentage of that. That astronomical number is definitely hard to process 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600 was about 570 million. They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's population. That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today. Whoa 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019 evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)
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
macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would you give G status to a country that invades to annex another nation, hacks your voting systems, meddles in your election, and who knows what else? This line of reasoning that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin is a level of red baiting, hive mind, groupthink  that is just frightening. it’s sad how liberals fall for this nonsense. I am no conservative nor Trump supporter but this has got to stop. Also the homophobic undertones that the “resistance” are promoting with Trump and Putin being in love has got to stop (to be fair in this post it is not used).  My opinion is that Trump and his lackeys did money laundering in Russia. There is ample evidence of this. There is, so far, a lot of nothingburgers when it comes to the claims that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin and even the more simple claim that Russia is working hard to appease Putin. If Putin and Trump are so cozy and so in bed with each other then answer this: 1. why did Russia not vote with the USA in regards to Israel? 2. Trump is also nice to Duerte, Kim Jong un, and Netanyahu. is he their puppet too? 3. Trump is being more hawkish to Russia than Obama was. The Trump administration has sold weapons to Ukraine something Obama did not take a side on as to not exacerbate the separatist tensions why would a putin puppet do that? 4. Trump admitted a new NATO member, Montenegro, despite Russia’s objections 5. He has increased NATO military numbers outside of the border of Russia  6. Trump has bombed Syria multiple times against Assad while Putin supports Assad, what kind of great relationship is this? Trump is increasing the proxy war not deescalating it. 7. Trump appointed Mattis and pentagon say that Russia and China are a greater threat to national security than terrorism 8. John Bolton is pushing for increasingly hawkish measures on Russia and many other countries 9. There is ample evidence that Trump administration officials including Kushner were manipulated by Israel, yet no one is complaining about that. Israel the sacred cow of both parties isn’t seen as an issue since it’s all Russia. Also after a year of investigating the 19 or so indictments, and the guilty pleas involved, NONE of them have anything to do with Trump Russia Election conspiracy ie- Manafort and Gates were accused of money laundering for funds in Ukraine (as ive been saying for months money laundering is where the evidence points to). With Flynn and papadopoulos both lied to the intelligence agencies but none of it directly pointed to election meddling. In flynns case it was to undermine obama in Israel and one step was to talk to a Russian ambassador the second convo was about sanctions. There is speculative evidence that perhaps was being so nice to Putin because Trump thought he wasn’t going to win and he wanted to push a Trump tower in Moscow and also money laundering. But the evidence that Putin or the Kremlin is controlling Trump and colluded in overturning democracy is weak. Meme farms have not been connected to the kremlin and even if they were . come on give me a break. Memes did not change the election. Democrats need to take responsibility for pushing a lifeless corpse of a candidate who colluded with her party to win, shunned progressives while pretending to be one, and who was known for lying, scandals, and flip flopping. Democrats are just embarrassed that they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an “inevitable” candidate who lost to a reality TV star.  Liberals should focus on Trump’s corruption, his policies, and their own policies as a more effective way of galvanizing people. The democrats need to stand up for something besides Russiagate hysteria and Trumps tweets. Immigrant families are being pulled apart while Rachel Madow and the liberals go full on looney tunes with Russia hysteria. Also note how Obama made fun of Romney for being so ardently against Russia even calling it McCarthyism and now that Trump rhetoric-wise doesn’t want to murder Putin in his sleep, the same democrats who laughed at Romney now want Trump to be hawkish and antagonistic towards Russia, which ironically, at least policy-wise, he has been. Also I love how liberals now in a tribalist reversal revere the FBI and CIA, two very corrupt agencies that have lied to us many times before, have spied on activists, leftists, and its own citizens, and responsible for regime changes around the world. Liberals also now love Mueller who lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. This is insanity. I am not saying it is impossible that Trump and Putin can be working together, What I am saying is that is seems based on the evidence highly improbable. Skepticism is an important tool in the toolbox of critical thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here are some sources that might whet your appetite for an alternative view of this nonsense  1  (author on collusion fails to show how Russia and Trump colluded. offers no evidence 2  (an hour long debate on Russia and Trump being a traitor; both sides discuss evidence; it is clear which side is lacking in evidence at least to me) 3   (a year after the Russia Trump investigation: an analysis)  : Trudeau, Merkel and Macron are now the leaders of the free world. Because Trump is an unstable, infantile, bully who works for Russia instead of the American people. ge Credit: wI h /eptod hitips/ /ortiy/ ad Hitj/ /bit.ly/23potou macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would you give G status to a country that invades to annex another nation, hacks your voting systems, meddles in your election, and who knows what else? This line of reasoning that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin is a level of red baiting, hive mind, groupthink  that is just frightening. it’s sad how liberals fall for this nonsense. I am no conservative nor Trump supporter but this has got to stop. Also the homophobic undertones that the “resistance” are promoting with Trump and Putin being in love has got to stop (to be fair in this post it is not used).  My opinion is that Trump and his lackeys did money laundering in Russia. There is ample evidence of this. There is, so far, a lot of nothingburgers when it comes to the claims that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin and even the more simple claim that Russia is working hard to appease Putin. If Putin and Trump are so cozy and so in bed with each other then answer this: 1. why did Russia not vote with the USA in regards to Israel? 2. Trump is also nice to Duerte, Kim Jong un, and Netanyahu. is he their puppet too? 3. Trump is being more hawkish to Russia than Obama was. The Trump administration has sold weapons to Ukraine something Obama did not take a side on as to not exacerbate the separatist tensions why would a putin puppet do that? 4. Trump admitted a new NATO member, Montenegro, despite Russia’s objections 5. He has increased NATO military numbers outside of the border of Russia  6. Trump has bombed Syria multiple times against Assad while Putin supports Assad, what kind of great relationship is this? Trump is increasing the proxy war not deescalating it. 7. Trump appointed Mattis and pentagon say that Russia and China are a greater threat to national security than terrorism 8. John Bolton is pushing for increasingly hawkish measures on Russia and many other countries 9. There is ample evidence that Trump administration officials including Kushner were manipulated by Israel, yet no one is complaining about that. Israel the sacred cow of both parties isn’t seen as an issue since it’s all Russia. Also after a year of investigating the 19 or so indictments, and the guilty pleas involved, NONE of them have anything to do with Trump Russia Election conspiracy ie- Manafort and Gates were accused of money laundering for funds in Ukraine (as ive been saying for months money laundering is where the evidence points to). With Flynn and papadopoulos both lied to the intelligence agencies but none of it directly pointed to election meddling. In flynns case it was to undermine obama in Israel and one step was to talk to a Russian ambassador the second convo was about sanctions. There is speculative evidence that perhaps was being so nice to Putin because Trump thought he wasn’t going to win and he wanted to push a Trump tower in Moscow and also money laundering. But the evidence that Putin or the Kremlin is controlling Trump and colluded in overturning democracy is weak. Meme farms have not been connected to the kremlin and even if they were . come on give me a break. Memes did not change the election. Democrats need to take responsibility for pushing a lifeless corpse of a candidate who colluded with her party to win, shunned progressives while pretending to be one, and who was known for lying, scandals, and flip flopping. Democrats are just embarrassed that they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an “inevitable” candidate who lost to a reality TV star.  Liberals should focus on Trump’s corruption, his policies, and their own policies as a more effective way of galvanizing people. The democrats need to stand up for something besides Russiagate hysteria and Trumps tweets. Immigrant families are being pulled apart while Rachel Madow and the liberals go full on looney tunes with Russia hysteria. Also note how Obama made fun of Romney for being so ardently against Russia even calling it McCarthyism and now that Trump rhetoric-wise doesn’t want to murder Putin in his sleep, the same democrats who laughed at Romney now want Trump to be hawkish and antagonistic towards Russia, which ironically, at least policy-wise, he has been. Also I love how liberals now in a tribalist reversal revere the FBI and CIA, two very corrupt agencies that have lied to us many times before, have spied on activists, leftists, and its own citizens, and responsible for regime changes around the world. Liberals also now love Mueller who lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. This is insanity. I am not saying it is impossible that Trump and Putin can be working together, What I am saying is that is seems based on the evidence highly improbable. Skepticism is an important tool in the toolbox of critical thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here are some sources that might whet your appetite for an alternative view of this nonsense  1  (author on collusion fails to show how Russia and Trump colluded. offers no evidence 2  (an hour long debate on Russia and Trump being a traitor; both sides discuss evidence; it is clear which side is lacking in evidence at least to me) 3   (a year after the Russia Trump investigation: an analysis)  

macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would y...

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
Here’s an idea 🤣 capitalize on your overpriced shit hole made investment 🤣 use the money to buy an American Made product like Pelican or others. Now I am not telling you what to do, personally I don’t waste my damn money on overpriced shit hole made products but if I did own one I will sale it for $17.76 dollars. Tag friends & Follow 🔊 👉🏽 @unclesamsmisguidedchildren - UncleSamsMisguidedChildren tactical military weapons guns yeticoolerchallenge militarymuscle 2ndamendment secondammendment 2A SemperFi airforce USMC navy army yeti veteranlife coastguard airforce yeticoolers americanmade nra militarylife igmilitia ar15 usamade pewpew americafirst Pewpewpew yetitumbler MolonLabe: Some qun owners are starting to DESTROY their YETI coolers. Iget the outrage, but some of these coolers cost $500 dollars & you already paid for them» Why not flood eBay with them for SUPER cheap? That will undermine YETI's new cooler sales & cost them serious money. Here’s an idea 🤣 capitalize on your overpriced shit hole made investment 🤣 use the money to buy an American Made product like Pelican or others. Now I am not telling you what to do, personally I don’t waste my damn money on overpriced shit hole made products but if I did own one I will sale it for $17.76 dollars. Tag friends & Follow 🔊 👉🏽 @unclesamsmisguidedchildren - UncleSamsMisguidedChildren tactical military weapons guns yeticoolerchallenge militarymuscle 2ndamendment secondammendment 2A SemperFi airforce USMC navy army yeti veteranlife coastguard airforce yeticoolers americanmade nra militarylife igmilitia ar15 usamade pewpew americafirst Pewpewpew yetitumbler MolonLabe
Save
White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ While racist, hate speech should never be tolerated, it is strictly prohibited in South Africa, as it is specifically excluded from the protection of free speech in the Constitution. In fact, according to the NY Times, back in 2016, the country released a draft law that would criminalize racism, meaning hate speech cases would go to criminal courts instead of civil and would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Since then, the nation has moved to implement the new rules and subsequently make an example of a white South African woman. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to CNN, Vicki Momberg was found guilty in November for crimen injuria, better known as the willful injuring of someone’s dignity in her racist verbal attack on a black police officer. The incident was caught on camera and quickly went viral. Since then, Momberg has been prosecuted and sentenced to three years in prison with one year suspended sentence, as she becomes the first South African to be jailed for the offense. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “We’ve had crimen injuria (cases before), but they have always been coupled by other charges. This is the first for a prison sentence for crimen injuria on its own,” a spokesperson said of the sentencing. “We are pleased with the sentence. This sends a clear message to those who undermine other people’s rights.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident that led to the sentencing, Momberg was caught on video hurling racial slurs at South African police officers after they stopped to help her after her car was broken into in Johannesburg. According to reports, she repeatedly used words that were used to insult black people during the apartheid. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Now, Momberg will have two years behind bars to think about her actions.: White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years @balleralert White South African Woman Becomes First To Be Jailed For Hate Speech After Video Of Her Racist Rant Goes Viral; Sentenced To Three Years – blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ While racist, hate speech should never be tolerated, it is strictly prohibited in South Africa, as it is specifically excluded from the protection of free speech in the Constitution. In fact, according to the NY Times, back in 2016, the country released a draft law that would criminalize racism, meaning hate speech cases would go to criminal courts instead of civil and would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Since then, the nation has moved to implement the new rules and subsequently make an example of a white South African woman. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to CNN, Vicki Momberg was found guilty in November for crimen injuria, better known as the willful injuring of someone’s dignity in her racist verbal attack on a black police officer. The incident was caught on camera and quickly went viral. Since then, Momberg has been prosecuted and sentenced to three years in prison with one year suspended sentence, as she becomes the first South African to be jailed for the offense. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “We’ve had crimen injuria (cases before), but they have always been coupled by other charges. This is the first for a prison sentence for crimen injuria on its own,” a spokesperson said of the sentencing. “We are pleased with the sentence. This sends a clear message to those who undermine other people’s rights.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In the incident that led to the sentencing, Momberg was caught on video hurling racial slurs at South African police officers after they stopped to help her after her car was broken into in Johannesburg. According to reports, she repeatedly used words that were used to insult black people during the apartheid. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Now, Momberg will have two years behind bars to think about her actions.
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://theonion.tumblr.com/post/170394258629/washingtonstressing-that-such-an-action-would-be" class="tumblr_blog">theonion</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>WASHINGTON—Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the “Nunes Memo” could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. “Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale,” said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. “If we take away the people’s faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that’s left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons.” At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating constitutional rights.<br/></p></blockquote>: FBI Warns Republican Memo Could Undermine Faith In Massive, Unaccountable Government Secret Agencies <p><a href="http://theonion.tumblr.com/post/170394258629/washingtonstressing-that-such-an-action-would-be" class="tumblr_blog">theonion</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>WASHINGTON—Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the “Nunes Memo” could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. “Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale,” said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. “If we take away the people’s faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that’s left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons.” At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating constitutional rights.<br/></p></blockquote>

<p><a href="http://theonion.tumblr.com/post/170394258629/washingtonstressing-that-such-an-action-would-be" class="tumblr_blog">theonion</...

Save
If this isnt the final act Ill be mad: how to know you are a norse mythology geek upon seeing THIS in the thor: ragnarok trailer you scream, "FENRIR! HI PUPPER!!! auntieval ME, WHEN THEGREAT WOLF FENRIR BREAKS FREE OF HIS CHAINS AND RACES OFF TO CONSUME ODIN, SIGNALING THE BEGINNING OF RAGNAROK AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD ohmy gosh puppy! come here pap!l oh, you are SUCH a good bon! let me pet your tummy. IT GOT BETTER OMFG IM CRYING Yeah.. me too. I wanna pat the very big pupper poztatt And this is how The End is stopped. Not by the gods or goddesses, the other races than man, no. It is Tumblr. As a mass running after a now confused and tail tucking Fenrir whining softly as the crowd chants "PUPPER! PUPPER! PUPPER! kyraneko Better yet: Fenrir escapes his chains and lopes forward to destroy the earth, and is met by a crowd of people. An army, Fenrir thinks, and bares his teeth in a ferocious snarl and charges toward them They cheer Wait. cheer? Fenrir slows, confused. He smells no fear senses no rage. This is a very strange army. The first hand-weaponless!-reaches for himc he tenses, ready to tear the offending limb to shreds, and lets out a high little yippy whine when it pats him about the ears Immediately the noise is reproduced by some four or five of the nearest humans, he smells excitement; more hands are patting him It's nice The humans crowd around him, patting him and scritching him and shuffling around to give others a chance. Voices coo, and make puppy noises, and someone catches just the right spot and he cocks his leg and scratches himself, drawing a multitude of oohs and ahhs and cheers and squees At some point, his hunger awakens at the scent of burnt fleshç a human has brought him what he later learns is a hot dog: he swallows it in one bite, to more cheering, and looks around hopefully for more It is not long before more is bought: steaks and Big Macs and bacon; it seems like much of the group has brought him a snack of some kind and was hoping for a chance to give it to him. The End of the World is supposed to be at hand, but Fenrir does not care. His hunger sated, his battle-lust swept away by a tide of gently petting hands, he rolls over, careful not to crush his many companions, and takes a nap. Who's a good boy?" they ask him, over and over s this some psychological warfare, he won ders, designed to undermine his confidence and remind him that he is nothing more than a monster who needs to be chained? Who's a good boy, huh, huh? "Who's my good boy? And then one of them answers the question for him. You are Me? he thinks. But if there was any doubt, she confirms it You are, yes you are Fenrirs tongue hangs out of his mouth as he grins. 'm a good boy! @lectorel Good post FENRIR IS PUPPER Odin will be the first to tell you, FENRIR IS A VERY GOOD BOY LARGE PUP MUST PET how to know you are a norse mythology geek upon seeing: "Odin il be the first to tell you, FENRIR IS A VERY GOOD BOY you say: the fuck he won't Source: sweetdreamr 40,277 notes If this isnt the final act Ill be mad
Save
Despite their noteworthy accomplishments, the educational reforms of the 1970s were not sustained into the 1980s. Like many other popu- lar programs from the early Siyaad era, mass education fell victim to the regime’s preoccupation with natural disasters, war with Ethiopia, and the subsequent refugee crisis. Increasing corruption and nepotism in all agencies of government (including the Ministry of Education) drained resources and enthusiasm from the schools, the teachers, and their pupils. It is instructive to examine what occurred in a few areas of educational and cultural life after 1975, as illustrations of what can go wrong when education is marginalized. • The severe drought of 1973–75 burdened the government with the responsibility of providing food and shelter for the afflicted rural population, but also provided an opportunity to bring education to the countryside. Teachers and high school students were sent out to work with displaced nomads who had been resettled in farm- ing and fishing villages, introducing large numbers of them to the new Somali script for the first time. However, shortages of relevant instructional materials and the nomads’ propensity to abandon their schooling in order to rebuild their herds or to seek out more lucra- tive employment in the Gulf soon eroded the gains of the Rural Lit- eracy Campaign. Mass rural education stagnated in the 1980s. From an (admittedly exaggerated) estimate of 70% rural literacy in 1975, United Nations’ estimates placed the literacy rate at about 25% in 1990, on the eve of the state’s collapse. • While the socialism-inspired reforms of the 1970s won guarded praise from many secular observers, they also alienated some of the country’s important religious leaders. Many of the latter had opposed the government’s choice of Latin script (rather than Arabic) for writing Somali and claimed that “Latiin waa la diin” (Latin is godless). Islamic educators were suspicious that “socialist” educa- tion paid insufficient attention to religion, and that new laws giving women equal inheritance and divorce rights would undermine the traditional authority of the Sharia courts. chakabars lovearmyforsomalia: This is what school uniforms looked like in Somalia in 1978 aC @chakabars Despite their noteworthy accomplishments, the educational reforms of the 1970s were not sustained into the 1980s. Like many other popu- lar programs from the early Siyaad era, mass education fell victim to the regime’s preoccupation with natural disasters, war with Ethiopia, and the subsequent refugee crisis. Increasing corruption and nepotism in all agencies of government (including the Ministry of Education) drained resources and enthusiasm from the schools, the teachers, and their pupils. It is instructive to examine what occurred in a few areas of educational and cultural life after 1975, as illustrations of what can go wrong when education is marginalized. • The severe drought of 1973–75 burdened the government with the responsibility of providing food and shelter for the afflicted rural population, but also provided an opportunity to bring education to the countryside. Teachers and high school students were sent out to work with displaced nomads who had been resettled in farm- ing and fishing villages, introducing large numbers of them to the new Somali script for the first time. However, shortages of relevant instructional materials and the nomads’ propensity to abandon their schooling in order to rebuild their herds or to seek out more lucra- tive employment in the Gulf soon eroded the gains of the Rural Lit- eracy Campaign. Mass rural education stagnated in the 1980s. From an (admittedly exaggerated) estimate of 70% rural literacy in 1975, United Nations’ estimates placed the literacy rate at about 25% in 1990, on the eve of the state’s collapse. • While the socialism-inspired reforms of the 1970s won guarded praise from many secular observers, they also alienated some of the country’s important religious leaders. Many of the latter had opposed the government’s choice of Latin script (rather than Arabic) for writing Somali and claimed that “Latiin waa la diin” (Latin is godless). Islamic educators were suspicious that “socialist” educa- tion paid insufficient attention to religion, and that new laws giving women equal inheritance and divorce rights would undermine the traditional authority of the Sharia courts. chakabars lovearmyforsomalia

Despite their noteworthy accomplishments, the educational reforms of the 1970s were not sustained into the 1980s. Like many other popu- l...

Save
<p><a href="http://memehumor.net/post/159198127788/a-real-human-being-thinks-that-not-only-would-it" class="tumblr_blog">memehumor</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>A real human being thinks that not only would it be possible for the UK to wage a war vs a NATO ally but that it is actually a viable option.</p></blockquote>: [-1-11 points 5 hours ageo We have the 5th largest military in the world. We are undefeated in the Falklands, WW1 and WW2. Those chaps in Brussells should bare that in mind before they start running their mouths. perma-link source embed save save-RES report give gold reply hide child comments 4 points hours ago Brussells Showing results for Brussels perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply hide child comments [-21-4 points 4 hours ago Wow, you're almost as much of a Nazi as Jean-claude Juncker perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply 个[-]· [+1] 5 points 3 hours ago There's delusional and then there's this. perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply t-1+1] 3 points 2 hours ago Yes. Britain attacks a NATO state. That will go well. The US is obligated to respond, and they have air bases 10min flying time from London. perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply hide child comments 4-3-4points 1 hour ago You never heard of the special relationship? perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply hide child comments -+2] 3 points 1 hour ago It's a malleable conceptual thing. The NATO treaty has the force of law. There is no way out of it unless the US is willing to scrap NATO. For a tiny rock they absolutely will not, as it would undermine all US defence pacts around the world There is no military option with Gib that allows Britain the moral high ground. It will be condemned by the EU, UN NATO and every other organisation. It would be insane. Then again insane seems to be back in style perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply hide child comments 个[-:- .- 噩Expat-chin] [score hidden] 43 minutes ago We'll fucking have the lot of em! Don't forget we invented Pugilism and winning wars! perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply 1 point 5 hours ago Snap question! Which country still has the capability to operate fixed winged aircraft off of aircraft carriers? Spain or the UK? perma-link source embed save save-RES parent report give gold reply hide child comments 1 point 2 hours ago <p><a href="http://memehumor.net/post/159198127788/a-real-human-being-thinks-that-not-only-would-it" class="tumblr_blog">memehumor</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>A real human being thinks that not only would it be possible for the UK to wage a war vs a NATO ally but that it is actually a viable option.</p></blockquote>
Save
TTStorytime - "Momma I'm hungry." "Eat a sandwich then." "But I don't want a sandwich." "Then you not hungry are you?" You know what, fuck that noise. "BITCH I SAID IM HUNGRY NOW TAKE YO BLACK ASS IN THAT KITCHEN WHERE YOU BELONG AND WHIP UP SOME SUPPER." Is what I wanted to say. Instead I walked back into my room, closed the door quietly, and proceed to RKO my pillow in frustration. How dare she undermine me like that. She always has something smart to say and I can't say shit back. But today is the day. I'm running away word to my ancestors in the 1700s. I found my backpack, emptied out my school stuff, and filled it with clothes and other toiletries. As I walked out of my room, momma saw me. "Where you going little boy?" "Outside." "Why you got that bookbag?" Fuck, cmon think of an excuse! "Ummmmmmmm, son machine 🅱roke." I sprinted away as fast as I could and out the door before she could call me back. I got outside and it was colder than my wrist 😂👌⌚ Nah but deadass it was freezing and I didn't bring a jacket. Always listen to your Mom. I contemplated what to do next. I didn't have anywhere to go on foot, and it was getting dark. Suddenly I heard my mother's voice from inside the house and I ran so fast Usain Bolt would be proud. I dolphin dived into a bush and peeked. I saw my mother standing on the porch. Then I heard the dogs. "Go find that little boy so I can beat his ass." she took off their collars and they pounced in my direction. My fight or flight instincts told my ass to start flying so I jumped out of the bushes and headed into the woods. I spotted a creek as I was running for my life. I heard somewhere that the slaves used water to hide from the dogs. Being my only option, I did an Advanced Warfare boost slam down the hill and into the creek. Finally I was saf- "BOYYYY YOU GOT 10 SECONDS TO GETCHO ASS UP OUT OF THIS CREEK BEFORE I DROWN YOU IN IT." Fuck me.: Niggas whom say who instead of whom TTStorytime - "Momma I'm hungry." "Eat a sandwich then." "But I don't want a sandwich." "Then you not hungry are you?" You know what, fuck that noise. "BITCH I SAID IM HUNGRY NOW TAKE YO BLACK ASS IN THAT KITCHEN WHERE YOU BELONG AND WHIP UP SOME SUPPER." Is what I wanted to say. Instead I walked back into my room, closed the door quietly, and proceed to RKO my pillow in frustration. How dare she undermine me like that. She always has something smart to say and I can't say shit back. But today is the day. I'm running away word to my ancestors in the 1700s. I found my backpack, emptied out my school stuff, and filled it with clothes and other toiletries. As I walked out of my room, momma saw me. "Where you going little boy?" "Outside." "Why you got that bookbag?" Fuck, cmon think of an excuse! "Ummmmmmmm, son machine 🅱roke." I sprinted away as fast as I could and out the door before she could call me back. I got outside and it was colder than my wrist 😂👌⌚ Nah but deadass it was freezing and I didn't bring a jacket. Always listen to your Mom. I contemplated what to do next. I didn't have anywhere to go on foot, and it was getting dark. Suddenly I heard my mother's voice from inside the house and I ran so fast Usain Bolt would be proud. I dolphin dived into a bush and peeked. I saw my mother standing on the porch. Then I heard the dogs. "Go find that little boy so I can beat his ass." she took off their collars and they pounced in my direction. My fight or flight instincts told my ass to start flying so I jumped out of the bushes and headed into the woods. I spotted a creek as I was running for my life. I heard somewhere that the slaves used water to hide from the dogs. Being my only option, I did an Advanced Warfare boost slam down the hill and into the creek. Finally I was saf- "BOYYYY YOU GOT 10 SECONDS TO GETCHO ASS UP OUT OF THIS CREEK BEFORE I DROWN YOU IN IT." Fuck me.
Save
💭 Open Warfare Declared in DC as Deep State ‘Goes Nuclear’ — Trump ‘Will Die in Jail’... 💭 REPORT: (link to article in our bio) The United States is entering an extreme and unprecedented political crisis in the form of a soft coup by the deep state. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have publicly called out these elements of the “intelligence-industrial complex” that are actively working to undermine, discredit and forcibly remove President Trump. . Giving a clear admission of a soft coup in progress, John Schindler, a former professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, who spent nearly a decade with the super-secret National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer — and who still maintains deep connections to the intelligence community — readily admitted that senior elements of the intelligence community (IC) are engaging in treason against Trump. . Speaking to this soft coup and smashing the left-right paradigm, on Tuesday, former Cleveland Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich boldly stated that, “There’s something wrong going on here in the intelligence community,” in calling out the real reason behind the forced resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. . Kucinich urged Trump to take control, and locate where the leakers are so he and the American people will know the truth. Kucinich said members of the intelligence community want to reignite a Cold War between the United States and Russia so the military, industrial and intelligence “axis” can “cash in.”... . - Continued - . 💭 Read the FULL Report: (link in bio) http:-thefreethoughtproject.com-open-warfare-declared-deep-state-shadow-govt-attempts-retain-power- 💭 Join Us: @TheFreeThoughtProject 💭 TheFreeThoughtProject DeepState 💭 LIKE our Facebook page & Visit our website for more News and Information. Link in Bio.... 💭 www.TheFreeThoughtProject.com: PLEDGES TOSPLINTERTHECIAINTOA THOUSAND PIECES END THE FEDERALRESERVE'S MONOPOLYON MONE,ANDSTOPS OPERATION NORTHWOODS FROM HAPPENING.ALLWHILE HIS BROTHER WAS INVESTIGATING THE MAFIA AS ATTORNEY GENERAL THEFREETHOUCHTPROJEC AND YOU STILL BELIEVE -ALONE GUNMAN DID THIS? 💭 Open Warfare Declared in DC as Deep State ‘Goes Nuclear’ — Trump ‘Will Die in Jail’... 💭 REPORT: (link to article in our bio) The United States is entering an extreme and unprecedented political crisis in the form of a soft coup by the deep state. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have publicly called out these elements of the “intelligence-industrial complex” that are actively working to undermine, discredit and forcibly remove President Trump. . Giving a clear admission of a soft coup in progress, John Schindler, a former professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, who spent nearly a decade with the super-secret National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer — and who still maintains deep connections to the intelligence community — readily admitted that senior elements of the intelligence community (IC) are engaging in treason against Trump. . Speaking to this soft coup and smashing the left-right paradigm, on Tuesday, former Cleveland Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich boldly stated that, “There’s something wrong going on here in the intelligence community,” in calling out the real reason behind the forced resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. . Kucinich urged Trump to take control, and locate where the leakers are so he and the American people will know the truth. Kucinich said members of the intelligence community want to reignite a Cold War between the United States and Russia so the military, industrial and intelligence “axis” can “cash in.”... . - Continued - . 💭 Read the FULL Report: (link in bio) http:-thefreethoughtproject.com-open-warfare-declared-deep-state-shadow-govt-attempts-retain-power- 💭 Join Us: @TheFreeThoughtProject 💭 TheFreeThoughtProject DeepState 💭 LIKE our Facebook page & Visit our website for more News and Information. Link in Bio.... 💭 www.TheFreeThoughtProject.com

💭 Open Warfare Declared in DC as Deep State ‘Goes Nuclear’ — Trump ‘Will Die in Jail’... 💭 REPORT: (link to article in our bio) The Unite...

Save