A different point of view on the Violence

The violence exposed and explained.

Depending on your personal opinions and political stance you view the world through vastly different perspectives. 

We will explore or attempt to explore by views of the current political arena. Looking at it from the election going forward to now.

From around midnight eastern time in November depending on your location you learned Donald J Trump had won the election and defeated Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and would be the next President Of The United States Of America and the Republic. You were either elated that your candidate had won or you were 100% completely shocked at the outcome. 

For months on end the main stream media prepared America for the coronation of Hillary and gave Trump absolutely no chance of winning even many so called red states.  Daily the media announced her win by a historic landslide beating Trump worse then at any other time in the history of the country. So what changed and why did liberals seem to be so frustrated and yes down right mad that Hillary had lost?

Looking at it from a liberal Hillary supporter view it was a hard slap in the face by an upstart businessman with supposedly zero political experience. Excuses flew like confetti at a Thanksgiving day parade.

It was Comey making his announcement of renewing the investigation or his statement saying she had did things wrong and careless but not criminal in his opinion. That was the tip of the iceberg of excuses none of which would alter the outcome but did fuel the anger toward Trump and his deplorable supporters.

The atmosphere of hate and potential violence had already been well established months prior to the day of the election but was far from over. Commentators, and news anchors further fueled the hate and potential violence with reporting and statements which would later be debunked as fake news reports and stories which have dogged the new President even until this writing. One accusation after another designed to damage the administration without a single shred of evidence to support their claims. Celebrities have contributed their fair share and deserve some of the blame for the escalating violence. Calling for the President to be punched in the face, or claims of a desire to blow up the white house, to acts which even some liberals called despicable like holding a beheaded likeness of Trump up ISIS style and claiming it was done for laughs.

All of these actions were/are designed and carried out to keep the Hillary supporters angry, and ready for war to prove a point that the only correct view and position is the liberal one, and bring down a setting President without any justification for such action. This has progressed to a point were even setting representatives like Maxine Waters, Green and Schumer have jumped on the bandwagon calling for impeachment without grounds or proof for such drastic action but rather simply because they hate that he won and they disagree with his position on many issues. 

So what has all of this managed to achieve and for what purpose? 

Division of the people and it's as simple as that. Keep the masses fighting each other and the elite can continue the destruction of America unnoticed. 

That's right everything is done with a purpose and the Puppet Masters are pulling everybody's strings at the same time to reach their agenda's goals.

They incite the left to violence and and have them attack the right or at least what is perceived as the right which might be people who lean toward their own beliefs. 

Simply having a R in front of ones name does not make you a conservative or  dictate ones position or views. Many so called Republicans are further to the left then some Democrats. Yet the scenario of hate is if they appear to disagree with the liberal position in the slightest then they must be eliminated with force if Necessary. 

The destruction of other's property is not only condoned but the act itself somehow justified as taking a stand for the liberal position. Killing a few people who fit into the basket of deplorables by disagreement is also condoned and applauded as some how furthering the liberal agenda and justified

The recent shooting of the Republicans near DC was justified by saying the shooter was frustrated with politics. What kind of excuse is that? We all get frustrated but that in no ways or by any means can justify attempting to take the lives of others. 

Groups such as Terminate The Republicans promote such violence through the propaganda they spew they claim they are abhorred by the actions taken by a member. This is equal to Stalin telling his SS troops to kill as many Jews as possible then proclaiming he knew nothing of the reasons so many were killed.

When liberals are called hypocrites they act as if there is absolutely no reason for such a label being placed on then. Righteous Indignation flows from the liberal at the mere thought that somehow they should take blame for the violence after all if those opposed to the liberal view would just give up then the liberal agenda could be put in place and the world made right. It's not the liberals who act violent responsibility to explain those who oppose them are the ones behind such violent actions.

The Alexandria shooting is the continuation of the riots in Berkeley and Middlebury. 

This is why the standard liberal motto — that violence is never legitimate, even though it may sometimes be necessary to resort to it — is insufficient. From a radical emancipatory perspective, this formula should be reversed: for the oppressed, violence is always legitimate (since their very status is the result of the violence they are exposed to), but never necessary (it will always be a matter of strategy whether or not use violence against the enemy).

It did not take very long to get from “Punch a Nazi!” to “assassinate a congressman.” A great deal of spittle has been deployed in the debate over whether or to what extent the Left’s recent indulgence of its penchant for violent rhetoric can be linked to the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise and other members of a Republican congressional baseball team by an angry Democratic activist and Bernie Sanders partisan. But the relevant question here is not violent rhetoric but violence itself. The violence at Berkeley and Middlebury did not lead to the shooting in Alexandria — they are part of the same phenomenon: The American Left has embraced political violence. More precisely, the Left has embraced “anarcho-tyranny.” (Yes, I know what kind of man Sam Francis became; his phrase remains useful.) The anarcho part: Progressives including mainstream Democrats have embraced the sort of violence that has been directed against the likes of Charles Murray as an instrument of liberationist politics. Representative Val Demings, a Democratic congressman from Florida, shared her view that the riots greeting Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley were “a beautiful sight.” After a physical attack on white nationalist Richard Spencer, Jeremy Binckes of Salon wrote: “Maybe the question shouldn’t be, ‘Is it okay to punch a Nazi?’ but, ‘If you don’t want to be punched in the face, maybe you shouldn’t preach Nazi values to the public?’” A lively debate about the ethics of using violence to suppress certain political views ensued. Short version: Free speech did not experience a runaway victory. Things are worse on campus. The editorial board of the Daily Californian defended blackshirt violence on the grounds that, without it, “neo-Nazis would be free to roam the streets of Berkeley.” The argument that people who hold unpopular political opinions should be physically unsafe — that they should be subject not to social exclusion or criticism but to violence, afraid to roam the streets — is textbook totalitarianism. California’s political leaders did almost nothing in response to the violence at Berkeley, but when the Trump administration threatened to sanction California, they leapt to action. Nancy Pelosi claimed, with no evidence, that the violence in Berkeley was the result of peaceful protests being “infiltrated,” and insisted “the protesters have a right to free speech as well.” But what greeted Yiannopoulos in Berkeley was not free speech: It was political violence organized to suppress free speech. Representative Barbara Lee complained that the Trump administration’s insistence that Berkeley protect the safety and civil rights of its students and visitors was an attempt to “bully our university into silence” — but it was Yiannopoulos who had literally been bullied into silence — with firebombs and truncheons — along with Charles Murray, Ann Coulter, and others. A Middlebury professor had to be briefly hospitalized after being physically attacked for having invited Charles Murray to campus. That is not free speech. That is violence, and Democrats, judging by their non-response to these episodes, have more or less made their peace with it.

We have the modern answer to the beer-hall brawlers of the 1930s.

That’s the anarcho part. The tyranny part is that while the Left’s blackshirts are permitted to inflict actual physical violence on people who have political opinions they don’t like, the Left’s whiteshirts — respectable Democratic officeholders and media figures — are working feverishly to inflict civil and criminal penalties on individuals and institutions that hold and communicate unpopular political opinions: “Arrest climate deniers!” Adam Weinstein and Robert Kennedy Jr. demanded, and, soon enough, Democrats were cooking up fraud cases against oil companies that had criticized climate-change proposals, and then used subpoenas and other measures to harass conservative and free-market political groups affiliated with them. Every Democrat in the Senate voted with Harry Reid to repeal the First Amendment and allow Congress to regulate political speech. The Obama administration saw to it that no one in the IRS ever faced any real punishment for that agency’s targeting of conservative groups for persecution and harassment. 

So, on the one hand, we have the modern answer to the beer-hall brawlers of the 1930s, and on the other hand, we have powerful political figures working to criminalize dissent. 

The same people who have spent the past 30 years cooking up ever-battier campus speech codes want to do the same thing for society at large in the form of so-called hate-speech regulation. They do this partly because they intend to win and to rule. They also do it because they have convinced themselves that we are in a state of national crisis, and that the dark shadow of fascism in descending on the United States. In reality, the only thing resembling a genuine totalitarian movement in American politics is the progressive camp from which emerged the man who shot Steve Scalise.

 Once you’ve accepted political violence as a legitimate tool in the context of American "democracy" — once you have concluded that the decision to use violence is only a matter of strategy, as Slavoj Žižek insists

 — then progress from pepper spray and bicycle locks to rifles and bombs is neither very long nor very difficult to anticipate. And here we are.

Reprint from The National Review. Story credit to: Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.

Read original article at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448660/alexandria-shooting-political-violence-left-berkeley-middlebury

MASS MURDER, & MIND MANIPULATION! 

Is your mind is being manipulated? 

What do these people have in common?

     Besides being guilty of mass murder take a closer look at their faces. Let's start with Adam Lanza since he was also a victim who either killed himself or was killed by authority.  His eyes seem fully dilated and he has what is often referred to as a blank stare. 

     He supposedly killed 26 people in Sandy Hook, Connecticut  and we have very little mental history on him other then he was a loner and loved video games. 

     If we compare the other photos we can see the same blank stare and again the mental histories seem to parallel. Loners, obsessed with single person activities, etc. The names of each isn't as important as looking as the possible motives or reasons behind their actions. 

     What would prompt a person to enter a school, theater, work place, or anywhere else and just kill people at random? Police, CIA, FBI, and every other law enforcement agency will tell you there is always a reason or something that made them take the action they did. 

What if it wasn't even their idea? What if somebody forced them to do it? What if somebody made them think it was their idea? What if somebody controlled their actions by controlling their thoughts?

     Government has been experimenting for decades on ways to control a person's thoughts and thus their minds. Has the Government attained such power? Although the public in general hasn't heard of the success doesn't mean they can't manipulate a person's mind using them to do the bidding of those who control their thoughts. 

     Consider the apparent facts. each murder had some form of mental issue which meant the use of drugs to control their behavior. Each individual was determined to be either off their drugs, over, or under medicated or not receiving treatment for their condition.

     No I am not referring to them being hypnotized movie style. I am referring to mind control drugs which may explain a lot. We know that there are time released drugs which slowly enter the system at predetermined intervals of a few hours or many days. We also know there are drugs to control the behavior of individuals. More importantly we know there are individuals who will resort to any measure to advance their agendas. Combine all the above and you have a formula for disaster such as mass murder to promote the need for more gun control. 

     What is more powerful then the death of children at the hands of a deranged individual to promote the gun control agenda? Or better yet a series of mass murders by deranged people who the public will never hear from. 

This of course has been prevented on the most part because the shooter often ends up dead. The others are whisked away never to be heard from. WHY? Even if they are as claimed mental patients, it doesn't mean they are incapable of speech and answering questions. 

    All individuals with the same blank stare and guilty of the same crime of mass murder. You need to ask yourself were these people put on a mind control drug and then told to commit mass murder? Is it even possible for somebody to control another's thoughts and manipulate them into doing these things? The development of new more powerful control drugs are becoming available every day and the only real question you need to ask is what drug makes it possible to control a person's mind. If it is concentrated could it be used on the public to manipulate daily thought? What are the possibilities?

Never stop asking the tough questions. 

    

EXPLAINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT. 

Thoughts from the day on what it means.

     Starting off as we approach Independence day we need to reflect on what our founding fathers envisioned when they composed the first ten amendments to our Constitution. What has become known as THE BILL OF RIGHTS and more specific the 2nd of those Amendments. 27 words which has long been debated as to what each word, part, or punctuation means. 

     But seldom does those debating what was the intent do those debating refer to what was written by the men, scholars, and leaders of the time explaining 2A.

They make claims of that militia means the military, or National Guard, or armed forces of the United States in some manner. They argue that arms means only weapons available when the Amendment was written and the writers could not envision advancements of modern guns. (only muskets in short) without giving these men the wisdom they most certainly deserve as to being able to see what future advances might be. These same men who had the forethought to develop the idea of a country where the supreme power lied with the people. 

     

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

     So what did some of the great minds of the day have to say regarding the Second Amendment.  Some of these were included in the Federalist papers and others obtained from other sources as noted. I mean who better to explain 2A then the founding fathers through quotes made which refer to the right itself.

So  here are some powerful quotes from the founding fathers themselves.

first Thomas Jefferson and his quote referring to "Shall not be infringed."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Take notice he did not say his musket or his cannon but specifically said arms. To any person with the ability to use reason and common sense above that of a earth worm it included every type weapon available that the man may want. Cannons, Bombs, Grenades, Rifles, pistols, explosives, etc.

     But they only had muskets and that is what they meant by arms. That argument is equal to saying they were limited to pea shooters and rubber bands. So what was the arms of the day besides muskets that Jefferson referred to.  Revolutionary War Artillery. Cannon, mortars and howitzers made up the three types of artillery used at Yorktown by the Americans, French and British. Cannon included both field guns, which were lightweight, mobile pieces and heavy siege guns which had limited mobility along with muskets, pistols, grenades and bayonets and anything else that could be used as a weapon.

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776"

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

Having provided several quotes on the subject I save the most important for the Second Amendment and every other Amendment for here. 

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

     Necessity as in modern times has become 'FOR THE GREATER GOOD" The argument now should be the same as it was during the time of the founders: "It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” 

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

     In closing after having read the words of the founding fathers only one logical conclusion can be reached on the Second Amendment. 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

Means every able bodied man, woman, and child are the Militia.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Means any and every type weapon you may desire and can afford should be available to you.

shall not be infringed."

Means without conditions, requirement, restrictions, or in any manner controlled by any person or authority.

   There you have it the Second Amendment explained and commented on by some of the founding fathers. Of course there are a lot more comments available made by the founding fathers through the Federalist papers and other reliable sources. So the next time you here the phrase common sense gun control simply explain that debate was settled way back in the 1700's by men far wiser then those asking for gun control. 

When is the real Independence Day: July 2 or July 4?

There’s no doubt the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. But which date has the legitimate claim on Independence Day: July 2 or July 4? 

If John Adams were alive today, he would tell you July 2nd. Other Founders would say July 4th, the day that is currently recognized as a federal holiday by our national government. And still other Founders would say, “what Independence Day?” since the holiday wasn’t widely celebrated until many of the Founders had passed away.

Here is the evidence, so you can decide which Independence Day is really Independence Day!

Officially, the Continental Congress declared its freedom from Britain on July 2, 1776, when it approved a resolution and delegates from New York were given permission to make it a unanimous vote.

John Adams thought July 2 would be marked as a national holiday for generations to come.

“The most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival… It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade with shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this continent to the other from this Time forward forever more,” Adams said about what he envisioned as a July 2nd national holiday.

After voting on independence on July 2, the Continental Congress needed to draft a document explaining the move to the public. It had been proposed in draft form by the Committee of Five (John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) and it took two days for the Congress to agree on the edits.

Once the Congress approved the actual Declaration on Independence document on July 4, it ordered that it be sent to a printer named John Dunlap. About 200 copies of the Dunlap Broadside were printed, with John Hancock’s name printed at the bottom. Today, 26 copies remain.

That is why the Declaration has the words, “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776,” at its top, because that is the day the approved last version was signed in Philadelphia.

On July 8, 1776, Colonel John Nixon of Philadelphia read a printed Declaration of Independence to the public for the first time on what is now called Independence Square.

(Most of the members of the Continental Congress signed a version of the Declaration on August 2, 1776 in Philadelphia. The names of the signers were released publicly in early 1777. So that famous painting showing the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776 is a bit of an exaggeration.)

The late historian Pauline Maier said in her 1997 book about the Declaration that no member of Congress recalled in early July 1777 that it was almost a year since they declared their freedom from the British. They finally remembered the event on July 3, 1777, and July 4th became the day that seemed to make sense for celebrating independence.

Maier also said that the Declaration (and celebrating its signing) was stuck in an early feud between the Federalists (of John Adams) and the Republicans (of Thomas Jefferson).  The Declaration and its anniversary day weren’t widely celebrated until the Federalists faded away from the political scene after 1812.

In 1870, Independence Day was made an unpaid holiday for federal employees. In 1941, Congress made it a paid holiday for them.

In the last letter he ever wrote, Thomas Jefferson spoke in 1826 of the importance of the day. “For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them,” he said.

Two days later, Jefferson and Adams both passed away on the Fourth of July.

Text reprinted from "When is the real Independence Day: July 2 or July 4?" When is the Real Independence Day

Judicial Violation of Constitution! Davidson District court for denial of your rights!

     On November 29, 2016 I made initial contact with State of North Carolina House Representative Republican Rayne Brown regarding the Davidson County District Attorney's direct violation of the Constitution.

 The Constitution provides that any fine exceeding $20.00 Twenty Dollars that the court must provide the defendant with legal representation and provide a jury trial upon request from defendant. I also contacted the State Senator Republican Stan Bingham's office regarding the violation of my right to trial and appointed counsel. 

I will be following up with both Representatives in the days to come

     

     The assistant DA did neither and simply stated they would be trying the case the day I appeared. The details are fairly simple and straight forward.

I was pulled over by a state Trooper for not properly wearing a seat belt and issued a ticket, Given a court date and told simply to either pay the fine and cost or appear in court. At the initial hearing I entered a not guilty plea and was assigned a new court date. I asked for an appointed attorney and even thought the fine exceeds the $20.00 minimum to qualify for a jury trial and appointed legal counsel the Assistant DA simply stated a new court date. Upon the return to court I again asked for appointed counsel and the DA reply was they were proceeding with the trial that day. End of the court story. I was fined $25.00 seat belt violation and $154.00 court cost. Court time for appearance approx, 12 to 15 minutes. 

This article covers many Constitutional violations and I will try to explain and expose each in separate paragraphs. These violations may seem petty but the loss of any right is a stepping stone to the loss of all rights so consider each violation as of paramount importance to restoring all our God Given inherent rights.

How to destroy your own political party from within.

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election and is now blaming the loss on...............
Well maybe we should ask that a different way. Who hasn't been blamed for her loss? At last count she has blamed her inept campaign attempt on everybody she can think of. Over 40 different excuses for her failures. If you are an American then it's your fault in some way shape or form that she lost.

If you are a employee working for the FBI it's your fault because your agency was investigating her email scandal. Shame on you for letting your boss James Comey even start an investigation who she also blames. Then of course the old stand by every liberal has at some point blamed, The Russians. The Russian people contacted the American voters and instructed each one on who they had to vote for and who they couldn't vote for and it was all done per the directions of Vladimir Putin.
We have only touched on the first couple sources for her loss and frankly they alone make her seem to have a mental issue accepting responsibility for her own actions.
So let's dwell on these for a moment longer and see how ridiculous they truly are.
Yes the FBI was investigating her email debacle of transmitting classified and unclassified information on a non secure server in her home, that a high school hacker tech could have accessed with ease. Nobody even remotely connected to the FBI said Hey Hillary use your private non secure server to transmit information which is or may become classified and to hell with standard protocols and rules or policies. So we have debunked it being the people of the FBI who were doing their jobs. James Comey on the other hand was in charge of the investigation into the emails and did lay out a convincing case why Hillary could have been charged with numerous crimes. But then he said he recommended that she not face any charges for the mishandling of Government documents. Essentially giving her a free pass for her actions. Thus the FBI claim is completely debunked as just another false claim of blame.
Now to the Russians and how it would be impossible for them to have decided the election in any way. Let's say Putin did communicate directly with Trump and told him to refer to Hillary as Crazy Hillary. The only reason for this to be effective is that the American people agreed she was acting strange and making bizarre statements. The American people could see first hand her having blatant health issues and attempting to conceal those problem which in my opinion was directly opposite from what she should have done. If she had been honest and just stated yes she was feeling under the weather and had a touch of pneumonia then people would have said "hell everybody gets sick at times." many would have even supported her decision to admit she was ill. Instead her campaign decided to blame Russia and hide her health issues. Another false blame shot down that is unless Vladimir Putin contacted you and told you who to vote for and you did.
So let's move on and take a look at the next group blamed. "Anti-American Forces." Not really sure who she believes make up this group but apparently they are people who are against the political establishment we currently have in place. This would include many Americans including myself and over 260 million more who knows our Government is corrupt. That doesn't mean we are "Anti-American Forces," it simply means we see the way our political establishment is destroying our beloved Republic. If this is the forces she is referring to then yes she is correct we did not vote for her but still a false blame for her loss when it was due to her stated positions.
Now we will look at a combinations of her claims of blame. The New York Times, Cable News, Fake News, Television Executives, everyone who assumed she would win, etc. In short the main stream media. This is the biggest false blame of the rest combined. Every media source harped on why she would be the next president and bashed every potential opponent from day one. The media blasted openly to the viewers minute by minute their support for Hillary. Jake Tapper even went so far as to proclaim on air that the media was doing everything possible to help Hillary become the next President. So that blows a bunch of the blame game claims out of the water.
But what about party loyalty? " I inherited nothing from the DNC." So the anointed one is even willing to throw her own party under the bus if she thinks it will somehow be to her advantage.  So it's the DNC who was forced to admit they rigged the primary so Hillary would be the nominee of their party and their candidate for POTUS. The head of the DNC and several others were forced to resign because of their corrupt action to assure her candidacy. Then the new head of the DNC Donna Brazil was caught providing Hillary with debate questions ahead of scheduled debates so her team could prepare her scripted answers.
Then not seeming to get the results she was looking for she then blamed the entire Democratic Party for her loss.  The Democratic didn't produce the correct documentaries that she needed. The party failed to mobilize the voters like they had for Obama in both his terms. and the list of party failures goes on. She then included former President Obama for two terms. Stating because he had failed to advance the party agenda properly it caused people to want a change. About the only person apparently who wasn't responsible for Hillary's loss was Hillary herself but even that claim is debunked because she was the one making the decisions for her campaign.

   Just in case you think this article is an exaggeration then listen to her laying blame herself. Or listen to CNN break it down for you.

The Democratic party is in disarray and has to decide what direction the party wants to pursue in the future. The last thing they need is Hillary Clinton blaming them for her failures. The people who believe everything that comes out of her mouth will surely turn on the party and stay home which will amplify the decline of the party. Good Job Hillary destroying your own support team.

ABOVE THE LAW BECAUSE WE MAKE THE LAWS!
Corruption by people like Hillary and Podesta and Schumer and McCain and the rest will continue to flourish and spread. They have no fear of being held accountable because they are the system. The corrupt system 260+ million Americans know we have and even when someone dares to try and fight back the people have their collective heads up their asses and are either to lazy or to stupid to do one damn thing to change things. 
Sure they can jump on forums like our community and bitch and gripe about how this or that is destroying America and yet when it comes right down to it they bury their heads in the sand with excuse after excuse for not doing anything. I have to.................................
I just can't get involved right now..........................
I will show you in 20..........................................
Excuses to do nothing right now.
All this while these people grow their corrupt world by the minute.  50+ years ago I saw the corruption and most said no our Government will never deny our rights. They will never infringe on free speech or declare Americans the terrorist enemy within.  This is America where freedom rings and we can come and go as we please. Our freedoms and rights are sacred and we have nothing to worry about.
We are now at 2017 where you are a terrorist American and could lose your life for speaking the truth and exposing the corruption. You can no longer say what you think or go where you please without big brother's permission to do so.
Read the bill of rights (small letters because daily we loose more of them) Then take one at a time and think how OUR elected (selected) officials have destroyed each one and continue to do so.
Let's look back and see a few events that removed our rights.
In 1961, President John Kennedy issued executive order 10925, which created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that federally funded projects take "affirmative action" to insure that hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias.
But it created more racial tensions and divided the races further. Companies passed up qualified people to meet quotas for hiring "minorities" If you were white and qualified to perform a job meant nothing until the required quota of minority hires was met shutting many whites out of the market.
In 1963 prayer was removed from the schools by using the claim of it was a combination of Church and State. It didn't matter if you were wanting to pray or not you were no longer allowed to decide for yourself. The Government had made that choice for you. Teen birth rates soared i the following couple years because according to the professionals there was no longer morals and principals of religions being allowed to even be discussed in school.
June 2002 No more Pledge in schools
A federal appeals court here declared today that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because the phrase ''one nation under God'' violates the separation of church and state.
Your children are no longer taught to respect country or flag or what Allegiance is. If they dare to even try to say a pledge they can and often are expelled from school. SCOTUS overturned the ruling with the following.

After the Ninth Circuit ruled, the mother of Newdow’s child obtained sole legal custody over her in a California state court and then attempted to intervene in Newdow’s Ninth Circuit case. The mother asserted that her daughter was a Christian who believes in God, and that she did not object to reciting the Pledge. She further claimed that her custodial status deprived Newdow of his standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, stating that, even as sole legal custodian, the mother had no power to insist that her child be subjected to unconstitutional state action.

In reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision, a five-justice majority of the Supreme Court ruled that it would not be “prudent” to find that Newdow had a sufficient interest to prosecute the case, because of a general reluctance on the part of federal courts to intervene in family law issues such as child custody, which are left to the states to determine.

In the decision, the majority purports to worry about the federal courts getting involved in a dispute between the two parents. But this rationale is clearly a pretext to avoid dealing with the constitutionality of the Pledge. No child custody issues were implicated whatsoever under the Ninth Circuit ruling, only the father’s rights to object to unconstitutional conduct.

The five justices in the majority include the four considered to constitute the court’s moderate-to-liberal wing—Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg and David Souter. The fifth justice signing onto the majority decision is Anthony Kennedy, who often blocs with the Court’s right-wing faction.

I hope by reading this much you grasp the reality that daily our rights and freedoms are being removed without our having any input or say in the matter.

According to recent numbers 263 million plus Americans know and admit the Government is and has been corrupt for a long time yet they continue to allow the corruption to spread.  It's time WE THE PEOPLE take back our country. 

It starts with you and me and our being willing to do what needs to be done to end the corruption.

It starts by taking the individuals down one at a time and forcing the others to leave the public service field or abide by their Constitutional oaths.

https://myevent.com/americafirst2017

or

https://www.gofundme.com/nuan9d-fighting-government-corruption%EF%BB%BF

                If each person who sees this donates just $5.00 we can proceed with real action to bring down a corrupt system from within. 

We can bring people like Hillary, McCain and the rest down but it will take a real fight to do so and your help is needed.

New Hillary Emails Reveal More CLASSIFIED Information Sent to Clinton Foundation Employees.

http://www.vivaliberty.com/new-hillary-emails-reveal-more-classified-information-sent-to-clinton-foundation-employees/

If you aren't willing to fight for your rights then you are just as guilty as the politicians who for decades have been stealing our rights.

Donate what you can and tell others to donate also. We the people can defeat and end the corruption but it takes working together. If not now, when? If not you, who?

You can be a part of the fight by donating what you can afford. $5.00 is just .16 cents a day.

https://www.gofundme.com/nuan9d-fighting-government-corruption%EF%BB%BFhttps://myevent.com/americafirst2017

https://plus.google.com/+BudJohnsonjr1950/posts/VSvRn5nVrLp