Follow by Email


Saturday, August 29, 2015

Open message to students in Illinois on social media law

Alright, students in the state of Illinois! It is time that you take back your rights of privacy and free speech! A few months ago, a law has been passed to allow schools to force students to give their private social media and e-mail passwords to schools all in the name of “Preventing bullying”.

Well BULL_**_!!! For those of you who know history, they always do this kind of stuff to monitor the masses more easily, and perhaps in our case, getting you used to giving up your privacy to legally questionable “authority”. Now, since not many of you may be into this kind of stuff like I am, I won’t dig into too much of why this is wrong anyways other than saying that it would be, at least arguably, an overstep of state government and school systems power.
But I will say that it is not constitutional. Simply put, look up the 1st and 4th amendments of the United States constitution. 
But wait, there’s more!
The “Patriot” act and the NDAA also violates the same document that confirms so many rights with the violations bringing at least questionable results. I can get into the rather interesting origins of terrorism, but that’s another topic.

Anyways, some of you may be saying “So? What do I have to hide”. For those of you who say that, you might be missing the fact that if we allow this sort of stuff to happen, we may end up in the “point of no return”. To see what I am talking about, skip to the 2nd last paragraph.
This is not the first time that schools had done rather dumb stuff to students. Go read and find about about some principal who screamed “terrorism” for mere civil disobedience. I mean, Seriously? A bunch of kids dressing up in a way that does not obey rules is an offense that they can be literally indefinitely detained without a warrant, trial or charge? Really, people (like if Mahatma Ghandi, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King were TERRORISTS without using violence)? And how would the world be like today if we did not have women’s rights and civil rights advocates doing what is necessary? Yes, civil disobedience was necessary before to bring change, and it still is now. No, it is not the same as starting violence or escalating violence (when not necessary) (both of which are wrong).
I’d also like to throw in that student disobedience is not that old of a concept anyway ( Heck, I even did this once (
So, are you still not motivated? Please watch 
The only thing I ask of you all is that you keep an open mind, and at least finish watching the video. But before you take action, you MUST overcome any fear related to such actions. Otherwise, you won’t be mentally prepared for what could come next.
And no, I am NO calling for an armed rebellion or overthrow of the current system for reasons explained on (look through videos #6 to #14).
To get some legal help, contact the American Civil Liberties Union (, National Lawyers Guild (, Center for Constitutional Rights ( and so on.
Please spamshare and friendbomb this post to every single student that lives in the state of Illinois you know!

Unless you want to hunt me down, you do not need to read this last part.
So, you hate this message, huh? Do you want me to be silenced?
If so, then look at my profile, and find out which school I go to. Go ahead and check out my social media network, find out who I am, and do what the heck you are going to do to me.
You can contact the school I go to. Send law enforcement to my home to intimidate me. Detain me. Arrest me. Heck, drag me out into the night and execute me or send a assassin(s) to get me for doing things quite a few others have done.
But you will not stop the great awakening. I am a tiny slither of it; there are dozens, if not, hundreds, of other 
people just like me doing what I am doing. Not to mention that you might cause someone to do something like call Infowars and spread the word. Even if you really control Infowars, once the word spreads about me falling, your forces better get gittin on shutting us up. 
This is Infowarrior Kriss Ite (not my real name) signing off. And remember, YOU are the resistance!

The broken/convoluted uses & definitions of "racist"

Also read: Philosophy & social issues rant: Savage vs Civilized dichotomy, oversimplification, gray areas, collectivism & hypocrisy.

Part 1.
Before we begin, let me tell you something; I am, by no means, a hateful or discriminatory person. I may know that there differences in particular biological groups in human beings, yet I do NOT hate or discriminate. Also, I do not really think that one race is totally superior to another; one may be "superior" in certain aspects while others in different aspects, but never overall superior, ideologically, socially, or morally/ethically.
And I will not talk about I.Q. scores, because not only is there a debate about race and I.Q. scores, but also, there is a debate on rather or not I.Q. is even a legitimate way to measure intelligence. I plan to make articles about not only the Pro's and Con's of diversity but also critique to rather or not there is a true "master race" and my opinion on accepting people as they are as long as they respect the rights of others.

(I agree with most of this guy's views, but not his views on unions, for reasons explained on a video called "Big Media Blindspot: Blue-Collar Blues".)

The way many Americans view and even define racism is often twisted and, I guess you can say FUBAR (which is military slang that stands for "fouled/f*** up beyond all recognition/reason/repair". And I am NOT saying this as in "flawed but all right"). 

From what I have seen, there are fringe elements from the the left and right; both often point fingers at each other. Both want to accuse the other side of being more racist, and often skim over, downplay, and/or even flat out ignore racism from their own side (I will not even show you everything by myself; look at both sides and think about it yourself). Both sides often base their accusations off of mainstream media propaganda, and the polarized left/right paradigm that many Americans have brought into stacked on top of the dismal understanding of history. Well, I'll give you a few examples where both liberals and conservatives need to find out how to expel true racists from their group.

Part 2.
For conservatives; I know that a good amount of you who are reading this are not racists to the point that you would turn someone down or otherwise discriminate against them simply for their race. But, how about what their wearing, rather it be a Kufi or hijab (believe it or not, some Orthodox Christians wear hijabs, and there are Jewish sects who wear burqas, NOT that I advocate hijab or want people to wear face coverings in public)? 

A lot of self identified conservatives, unfortunately, dislike Muslims to the point where they would discriminate against them when they have not committed a crime yet. But, this does not end here; there are conservatives who ABSOLUTELY hate the guts of Muslims and Arabs (ESPECIALLY Palestinians), and treat Islam, Muslims, Palestine, Palestinian people and the Hamas government (and maybe ISIS) as one element. For some proof, go on the internet and look in the comments section of any political Israel-related content, like this for example. Many of these people have no clue that Arabs and Muslims who support Israel (and that there are Muslims who acted good to Jews and Christians, and are not like Islamofacist lowlife scum like what ISIS or the Taliban has or whatever is in that case. Plus, not all Muslims share that many beliefs or have a similar mentality. I've addressed similar issues here, and StormCloudsGathering has touched upon a similar, related problem here), and that Jews are not perfect.

I know that a lot of stereotypical Christian-conservatives are going to say "How dare you love and support goatf***ing rag headed satanic-pedophile worshiping sand monkeys over god's chosen people!? (whew)".
I never said that I liked Jews any more or any less than Muslims; I am just saying that they are human, and I view them as that. Rather or not you agree with that, one thing is for sure; Jewish people can be just as loving, caring, and kind as Muslims or Arabs can be, but at the same time, can be every bit as hateful, heartless and cruel as Arabs or Muslims can be. Just becuase a particular group of people does not seem innocent to me and/or I disagree with the way they do things does not mean that I'll directly hate them.

Though I don't totally agree with what he says, for reasons explained below (not that it's a big issue for me);

Jews are every bit as capable to steal without proper justification (ie survival/emergency), damage things when not necessary, rape, kill outside of defense of self and/or others and so on as any other group in the human species can. This is a fact of life; they are like everyone else, and like the rest of the human species, lack genes that create perfect humans. I have nothing against the entire Jewish people, even though i disagree with some of the things they often do, their beliefs, and even if I hate individuals, I do not hate entire groups. I even have at least 1 Jewish friend/ally on Pinterest, and support Jewish groups such as the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (, Orthodox Jews united against Zionism (, True Torah Jews (, Jews against Islamophobia (, and even Jews against circumcision ( 
Of course, I'll try NOT to contradict myself; 

Oh, and do not forget how many lies were made against Muslims (the answer; hundreds as seen in the link).

Part 3. For Liberals; I have not seen too many racist liberals (with a few interesting exceptions, that you can look up for yourself), but will tell you that there are "liberals" who may discriminate against whites, including downplaying crimes against people with light skin.

 In my view, it is WRONG to discriminate against any race as a whole, and is just as wrong as vise versa. Along with this, a few Obama supporters even call people "racist" for disliking or disagreeing with Obama, which is just like calling people who, say, dislike someone such as, say, Jefferson Davis for example is a racist.

Not to mention the blatant political correctness that American "liberals" have for Muslims, (illegal) immigrants, and, while I'm reluctant to say this, black (and, to an extent, Latino) people (or ANYONE else for that matter). I am for treating EVERYONE EQUALLY, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, color, ethnicity, or other characteristics, and giving people special exceptions for things such as ethnicity or beliefs, and/or stereotyping is just plain wrong. Sure, I may disagree with certain cultures and the mindset with certain groups, but I am not a huff-puff hater about it.

Part 4.
I will definitely say that there is irrefutable evidence that people from both sides has used race in some way, shape, or form (essentially as a tool and/or asset) to further their agenda. This is just ONE of the things that bothers me about American liberals and conservatives.

And unfortunately, everyone is slightly racist, but fortunately, not to a point that I consider dangerous.

Are you part of any of these 2 groups? Then go and call out those who ruin your image!

I'll mention that people can accuse me of being racist becuase I have used shady characters (such as David Duke) as sources, rather or not I agree with their political views. Then again, I have to expect that as that I kind've invited the question of "Hey, are you a racist or what?", just like if I wore a tutu in public and have people asking me rather or not I'm a ballerina.

In short, let's say that I'm a law enforcement/security officer, would I care if an individual is wearing a 3 piece suit, tie, a hat and has Payots (curled hair), or wearing a white Thawb and Keffiyeh or Kufi, or a tank top and torn jeans, or suit and tie minus the hat and Payor punched someone for no good reason? Probably not enough that I won't arrest them.
I hardly care about what they look like alone; what I truly care about is the content of their character (remember Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech). If I arrest someone and they say something like "I am a man/woman of god" or "I'm part of god's chosen people and thus I'm above human law", then I'll probably say something along the lines of "My job is to enforce human law in my jurisdiction (law enforcement)/establishment rules (security), not (insert deity name here)'s law. Tell what you just told me to the judge".

Kind've reminds me of what happened when a Chinese mainlander made a claim to a Hong Kong police officer that the former was a communist party official.

I've also seen people, mainly liberals misuse the word "bigot/bigoted/bigotry", even though it, in simple terms, means really hateful and/or intolerant. I have also seen the Southern Poverty Law Center use the word "extremist" a lot, and I feel like that they use it not always becuase it is honest, but rather, because it sounds scary.

There are many variables for the mentality of the people I run into, I’ll mention the consumption of Fluoride, Alcohol and unnecessary drugs and perhaps even mercury and chemicals in vaccines (not that I oppose vaccines entirely, but rather, I want safety and quality stands to improve by removing protections given to the pharmaceutical industry).


Part 5. Going on a tangent (and this is an excerpt from my personal rant), one HUGE pet peeve I have is how much people value human life over things such as faith or how they were killed. For example, I see Christians on Pinterest with the "Christian/Jewish Persecution & News" board, Muslims with the "SUFFERINGS OF THE MUSLIMS!" board (though I'll admit that I am part of the latter), and people saying things like "Stop gun violence" instead of "Stop all violence" or "Black lives matter" (or related sayings, such as "White lives matter", "Red lives matter" (Native American), "Blue lives" (law enforcement, especially police) matter, "Brown lives matter" (Latin American and perhaps middle eastern and North African), "Yellow lives matter" (Asian) and things like that) as opposed to "All lives matter" in general. I hate valuing human life in any way other than what each one does. I simply feel that it is asinine to value lives simply over faith or how it was ended or things like that. This issue is explained on NRA News Commentators Episode 2: Dishonest Solutions and the last paragraph of Zionism, The State of Israel & the Rise of Antisemitism . I mean, guess what? When you take the "gun" out of "gun violence" or "gun death", there is still "violence" and "death". When you take "Christian", "Jewish", "Muslim" or something like that out of "Christian persecution", "Jewish persecution" or "Muslim persecution", you still have "persecution". At least I feel a little relieved when people break away from stereotypes like what you see on and .

A few things that bug me about American culture; .

Links to anti-fascist websites;,,, . Links to anti-racist websites;,,,,,,,, .

And please note that I may not always agree with all of the views of the people running these sites.

Soon, I'll be posting a couple of articles that challenges the practicality/feasibility of race supremacism and the views of race supremacists. So, do you disagree with me? If so, please, go ahead and put me in my place in the comments, just no racist comments or comments that promote hate against groups.

Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, and subscribe to my YouTube channel (, and please support the channels I support.

Immigration: what I think.

All of this was taken from my personal rant.
In my opinion, immigration should be allowed, just as long as the system can support the immigrants and major troublemakers (such as those convicted of serious crimes such as murder or those who steal when they don't have to do so for survival, ie, if they could get  a job) get kicked out. I am for "balanced" immigration, though you must gauge what "balanced" is. Anyways, while I personally don't have much of a direct issue with immigrants in of themselves, the last people I want to come in are dangerous people, help-refusing substances abusers and so on and so forth. And I don't want people with serious diseases to come in until they get better or they are quarantined so they won't make everybody else sick.
I do not want to overrun or overpopulate any country with immigrants because if they are not yet "ready", there would be too much of a strain of jobs and resources for everyone. Do I want to help poor immigrants and refugees? HECK YES!!! In fact, you do not know how much I want to PUNISH lazy, selfish scumbag lowlifes that run bigshot corporations but treat employees poorly (and have the money from fines go to the people as compensation. By the way, this is a reason why I want a maximum wage  law set in place for company C.E.O.'s and bigshots). But I do not want to overload the system (taxpayer funded welfare in particular), which would ruin things for everyone, both immigrants and non-immigrants. To help people in other countries, programs should be run to help them (like what the U.N. does) in things such as education, healthcare, getting good jobs and so on
I also want to address people who hate on and wish to deport immigrants. Well, while I will not say rather or not (legal) immigrants really take away jobs, I recommend looking up how places such as the United States of America may get into economic/financial trouble without immigrants to do certain types of work . This issue is (at least partially) explained on Would America's Farms Collapse Without Immigrants?. Not to mention that  many doctors are Asian and we already have a shortage of doctors in the United States of America. So if we, say, deport all or at least a lot of Asians, it will probably make the shortage even worse untill non-Asians can fill in (if there are even enough of them to do so). Not mention that many work in the Science and technology sector.
Not to mention that immigrants may also create jobs. Though off course, there should be a balance.
I’d also like to add why I consider myself a supporter of voluntary (definitely NOT forced, and to h**l with forced segregation, slavery and discrimination) segregation and a melting pot as opposed to multiculturalism.
As mentioned in the video above (just to let you know, I do NOT agree with a lot of David Duke’s opinions on things such as immigration or, at least in his past, his views on race, particularly on non caucasians. As always, question EVERYTHING. And in this case, Duke is leaving out other factors such as economics, substance ie drug use, or even the specific groups in question), forcing groups to be together when they really do not want to be together just does not turn out well (in the long run). If groups are able to work together and mix, it is perfectly fine by me and I personally appreciate that. But if groups hate each other to a violent level, then they should avoid getting to close to each other just as if you know someone who you may get into trouble with you may avoid them.
This also reminds me of instances like how some Israelis treat gentiles & Jews who disagree with them and hardcore Muslims mistreating people just to name a couple of cases. I mean, c’mon, people! I get that you may not be fans of outsides, but doggone, if you dislike them so much, how about form a small, gated community with a sign that says “Outsiders not welcome” or “Outsiders unwanted” or something in that matter. And if you dislike certain types of people and you are in a place where the types of people you dislike are too common then, please, move somewheres else. I myself am really for religious freedom, but not the freedom to mistreat other people or force them to do things for you. Just respect other people’s rights and the law and you shouldn’t expect too many issues because there would be less ammunition to use against you. Sheesh.

One way that I have came up with to help combat hunger is to give everyone aquaponics systems (powered by Power4Patriots solar systems) combined with the 4 foot farm blueprint and rainwater collection systems. But this will require a resource investment to fully work.
Oh, and before you cry "racist!" or "bigot!", go read The convoluted uses & definitions of "racist" .

Plus, there are ways to help those in other countries, such as providing foreign aid.

(Note; of course, I do NOT agree with all of Michael Savage's opinions or like him, but here's something I actually agree with)
(I also do NOT ask that it be easier to legally move to other countries. Also, look up "Brain drain", which hurts other countries further.)
Why do I prefer that immigrants assimilate? I am not into forcing them, but the ability to work together is important, ESPECIALLY during an emergency or crisis.

Friday, August 21, 2015

So you think that punishing all Muslims (collective punishment) would work? Read this!

BEFORE YOU REPLY, READ THE ENTIRE POST. WHEN YOU DO COMMENT, THINK YOUR COMMENT OVER MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE YOU DROP A COMMENT. And if you wonder why I used this video, though not related to the topic, I just thought it fit in the best for the kind of issue I’m talking about, along with a video called “Motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris”, which I’m going to refer to later. And no, I am NOT a Muslim, or middle eastern person (I am religiously atheist-agnostic (in simple terms, means that while I don’t believe in a higher being, that belief is not particularly strong) and half Asian, half Caucasian. Though both are trivial, and the only reason for mentioning this is to cut down the people throwing around accusations and stuff in that matter. And NO, I am not trying to say that Muslims or Islam are a race; it is asinine and outright untrue). I also know that people are going to get mad at me for doing this. If you disagree, state your REASON(S) in the comments (accusations or directly attacking me won't cut it). And no, I will NOT defend Islam or any other belief system as a religion, nor will I object to criticism of people as long as that criticism is backed with solid facts (I won't object to criticism of ideologies). But direct hate against people is a problem.
This reverse-psychology work is a mirror of The Chattanooga killings; we need to talk and was based off of Ron Paul's "Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!" political add, and was made with help credit of (I copied, pasted then edited it). By for way, for reasons explained on Why You Should NOT Vote For Rand Paul In 2016, I support RON Paul, not his NeoCon flip-flopping son. Also, I am skeptical rather or not Ron Paul is a "Wolf in sheep's clothing", however, I have yet to see solid evidence that shows that he is one, and besides, he is endorsed by a lot of truth people (such as the "Infowars team", Jesse Ventura, Ryan Dawson, Mark Dice, and, though I do NOT politically support, endorse or agree with this last one outside of information, David Duke. And I do NOT purposefully even "align" myself with him due to his past, so shut about this "aligning" junk. I support and agree with him LESS than you support and agree with any NEWS reporter you listened to).
I also support other truth people, such as Aaron Hawkins/StormCloudsGathering, Ryan Dawson, Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura.

Imagine for a moment that somewhere else in the world (the middle east, perhaps), a Christian terror group rose up and committed hideous acts of violence against mostly poorly armed, equipped or prepared civilians. After a major uproar, sanctions were put against the entire Christian people, regardless of individual guilt, and justified by a few other acts of unnecessary violence, coupled with lies spread through the internet and dubious testimonials of self-proclaimed "Former Christians" who claimed that the collective goal of Christians was to practically dominate the world. So, all Christians had most rights that they used to have are now stolen, services denied without further justification, and were given little real leverage, value, importance, power or anything and everything else that would be going for them. Imagine that both the government and those doing the government's bidding were militant antithest, or worse, Islamic fundamentalist. Imagine they were doing this under the auspices of “keeping the majority of people safe” or “protecting traditional values” or “destroying a savage, devilish ideology.”
Imagine that they operated outside of of the original law, and that Constitutional protections had exceptions for minorities as in that they may not apply to unpopular minorities. Imagine that people were rarely arresting for killing Christians outside of defense. So people can now attack Christians or steal their assets and property, usually with little more than a slap on the wrist. Imagine that they set up death/concentration internment/prison camps for Christians and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of civilian homes with warrants that are too easy to get, if warrants were even needed. Imagine if Christians were frightened and angered by such tyrannical and arbitrary enforcement, and started to radicalize as their fuse is burning up.
Imagine if some Christians were so angry about such treatment that they actually joined together to fight back, in defense of not only their beliefs, but their own rights as human beings, because most other people did not care enough. Imagine that these people were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the true savage terrorists. Imagine that the enforcer’s attitude was that if they just killed enough Christians, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every people on one side killed, more on the other side would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if people were more rational and careful about their decisions. Imagine if they made good choices in the first place and actually prevent this horror.
Imagine if the human species was actually humane.
The reality is that punishing Muslims and/or suspected Muslims is just as morally/ethically questionable, if not, ineffective to counter-productive as Islamic governments (or any fundamentalist government for that matter) were to mistreat minority or dissenting groups. Simply put, when there is a fire, you do not add fuel to it. If you want to build up the membership of ISIS, for example, you would treat Muslims so badly that they are pushed into using violence after getting tired of their treatment. Same goes for, say, the KKK (or the Lord's Resistance Army or the National Liberation Front of Tripura) and Christians or something in that matter. To understand this better, go watch Motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris .
In short, as explained in my "Chattanooga killings; we need to talk" article, collective punishment simply is not only morally/ethically questionable, but may not even work like the way you wish.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

My constitution, & declaration of human & natural rights.

Note: amendments with the words "can NOT be changed" can NOT be changed or reformed in any matter. No exemptions. ALL of these rights are given to citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, color, ethnicity, or other characteristics. The people CAN also have rights not listed in the constitution. And please make comments and suggestions; I want to know what you think.

Separation of power; there shall be 3 branches of government to keep each other from gaining too much power.

Legislative; Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United Federation. Under the nondelegation doctrine (must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself), Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency.

Executive branch; Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law, the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the national military and law enforcement, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president.

Judicial branch; this branch has the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the Republic.

Amendment 1: the right to keep & bear military arms and armor, and the duty to keep arms and armor. This amendment allows the citizenry to own & use the same weapons as the government. The government, when it comes to small arms (weapons that can be used by an individual) can NOT own, possess, or use Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, which are prohibited (weapons that launch explosive projectiles, may be (but not required to be) regulated but the license for such a device must be "shall-issue", meaning that if a licensee meets all the requirements, they will be issued a license.
This right may only be restricted if there is evidence to show that an induvidual committed 1 or more serious violent crimes, and/or has made serious threats to do so. And, that individual may not have the right to possess lethal weapons. Quick background checks for buying weapons & ammunition are acceptable for individuals who didn't commit the listed crimes. Quick weapon safety classes are encouraged but NOT mandatory, same with weapon insurance. Individuals under the age of majority might not have the right to privately own arms. Individuals with psychological and/or emotional issues may opt out of mandatory weapon ownership if they wish to do so, and thus, may be exempt from the duty to keep arms. But nonetheless, they are still able to have arms if they wish. The sole purpose for this amendment is to give the people a chance against a corrupted government, foreign or domestic, along with any criminals. Shall NOT be infringed. Arms manufacturers shall NOT be sued for misuse of their products, and, in terms of its products, may only be sued for design and/or construction flaws. This does not apply to other types of legal issues, such as safety, employee rights, and/or environmental protection.
Arms distributors and sellers shall not be controlled by government entities beyond requiring shall-issue licenses, security of merchandise and standard regulations on those who may acquire arms.
Shall NOT be changed.

2nd amendment: freedom of expression, press, nonviolently assemble, petition and religion. With the exemption of doing prank calls and/or messages to emergency services, the right to freedom of speech shall not be infringed. Censorship isn't allowed except for vital military, law enforcement or government secrets. There shall be no monopolies on information. Individuals can practice any religion they wish as long as that they respect the rights of others. The government shall NOT make any laws about religion and religion shall NOT control the government. The government shall be secular.
Can not be changed.

3rd amendment: the government can NOT hold an individual for any longer than they "need too" before a trial, ie, the person shall go to trial and should NOT be forced to be held for long periods of time when the court is ready for them. Bail shall not be excessive. If an individual can't afford bail, it must be lowered until they can. Along with this, they should NOT be given cruel or unusual punishment, such as torture, non-consensual experiments, and/or the removal or modification of any body part. Individuals are also protected from double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of property under eminent domain. Individuals also have the right to: be informed about what's going to happen to them (along with those involved), have the right to remain silent (can't be forced to talk), right to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury be informed of criminal charges, right to confront witnesses, compel witnesses to appear in court, and assistance of counsel. If an induvidual wishes to, they may talk to their lawyer(s) and/or attorney(s) before any questioning, and have their lawyer(s) and/or attorney(s) present them during questioning and trial. If one can't afford (a) lawyer(s) and attorney(s), they must be appointed before any questioning.
Also, prosecutors shall never withhold information from the courts, judge, or jury.

4th amendment: children have the same court rights as adults do equal ability to appear in court against anyone (even their own caretakers), and the right to be free from ALL abuse and/or neglect. Physical abuse can be purposeful serious injuries caused by the abuser and examples are bruises, scratches, burns, broken bones and/or lacerations. Sexual abuse is defined as NON-CONSENSUAL contact and/or interaction with genitalia, anus and/or breasts. Forcing cosmetic surgery and/or religion is NOT allowed either.

5th amendment: right to access decent quality resources. People have the human right to access and provide their own clean water, food, shelter and decent clothing. People should be able to use technology, such as wood gasifiers powering aquaponics systems filled by rainwater. And, intentionally dumping dangerous chemicals into a water supply is TERRORISM. Creating and/or genetically engineering foods will at least be tightly regulated, and ALL genetically modified organisms must be labeled (can NOT be changed). With this, also comes the right to free education & training. There shall be no monopolies on healthcare.

6th amendment: the right to equal chance and equality: it is illegal to prevent anyone from voting or getting resources regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, color, ethnicity, or other characteristics.

7th amendment: stopping corporations from controlling the government. It is illegal for politicians to take bribes from corporations. Individuals may give politicians money for political reasons, but the politician MUST give a financial disclosure. The formation of political parties shall not be allowed either. Whatever the case, politicians and government officials MUST disclose who gave them any money or assets.

8th amendment: prisoner’s rights. Prisoners shall have the right to voluntary exercise, a library, and decent food. The food doesn’t have to be good tasting, but at least good enough to keep the prisoners reasonably healthy.

9th amendment: currency. Currency shall only be issued by the government. No other individual, group or organization may ever issue legally recognised currency.

(Repealed) 10th amendment: taxes and salary caps. To prevent corporations, groups and/or individuals from not paying taxes, there will be national sales taxes as opposed to income taxes. If this isn’t enough, then the government is allowed to establish income taxes but the people must get things in return. Politicians do NOT need to be wealthy, just earn enough to survive and be reasonably healthy. Corporate CEO's (defined as a owner of a corporation. A corporation is defined as a legal business structure that establishes the business as being a separate entity from the owner(s). This means that the assets, income, debts, and liabilities of the business belong to corporation, not to the owner(s).) must also pay their workers well (at least have the CEO's earn NO LESS than, say, 40 times what the least paid worker earns. The only exemption is perhaps if more employees are coming into a company and their pay be reduced to accommodate more workers). There must also be salary caps for CEO's of corporations that shall not be excessively lax. The government shall put restrictions on how much money C.E.O.’s may store abroad, rather they are a citizen or are running business in the nation. This amendment can be changed to fit the needs of the present and future.

11th amendment: worker's rights. Workers must be treated with reasonable decency within the company or agency they work for. Specifically, they must be issued required safety equipment for their job. They also must be paid and compensated for injury and/or sick leave. This applies to pregnant women.

12th amendment: education. In public schools, students must be taught at least how to not only do basic math, read and write well, but also how to grow a garden (with and without aquaponics), fix machinery and vehicles, balance a checkbook, make a healthy meal, organize and lead groups and resolve conflict nonviolently. All of these MUST be taught. It is also encouraged to learn how to question an ideology, think for oneself and live off-grid. Students should also be told about EVERY atrocity against civilians done by the government in deep detail.

13th amendment: disabled people. If possible, the government should help disabled individuals if possible. It is also illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities.

14th amendment: immigration, culture and collective punishment. Immigration is allowed, but only so if immigrants do NOT collapse the economy, do NOT severely affect it in a negative way or does NOT cause excessive, uncontrollable violence. The government shall NOT force integration or segregation; the people must decide for themselves. Groups that are compatible and wish to integrate voluntarily can. Groups that are incompatible with others and/or does not want to integrate should be allowed to segregate or separate themselves voluntarily. This is done to let cultures survive and prevent unnecessary fighting. There shall be a melting pot, defined as "letting races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole". Collective punishment shall NOT be enforced; individuals shall be punished only for the crimes they committed, not for the crimes of any group(s) that they are in and/or related to. This includes deportations, in which a group cannot be forced to leave as a whole; only individuals shall be punished for their crimes, and the sentencing for those individuals must follow due process. However, this does not allow people to discriminate against others. May not be changed.

14th amendment: right to revolution. Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

16th amendment: animal rights. Animals must never be allowed to be abused, neglected, or mistreated.

17th amendment: chief law enforcement officers shall be elected by the citizenry of their jurisdiction.

18th amendment: if a politician EVER violates the constitution, they MUST be punished. At the least, they should get heavy fines, a jail sentence no less than 6 months, or, for repeated offences, barring from political office for multiple years.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Should we trust the U.S. government to take care of us?

Just to let all of you know, for reasons explained on videos #6-14 on , I am NOT calling for the immediate overthrow of the U.S. government

People, do you still trust that drones people, and can search, arrest, torture or kill (NDAA reference) without reason?

 The same government that did bioweapons experiments on people without their consent?
 The same government that did mind control experiments (project MK-ULTRA reference)
(please do further research yourself)?

Do you truly think that the same government won't use violence against us (especially when the DHS brought LOTS of hollow points & buckshot. Those who know about guns and ammo knows that you use regular bullets & birdshot for training because hollowpoints & buckshot are expensive)? And they're willing to kill people with drones & take out MORE civilians in the process?
Not to mention that many people who are turned off by this type of information openly know that the government is sold out by corporations.

"A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
Entitled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 (PDF), the study was produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. The organization was launched with the aid of DHS funding to the tune of $12 million dollars.

While largely omitting Islamic terrorism - the report fails completely to mention the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – the study focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism.

The report takes its definitions from a 2011 study entitled Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in which the following characteristics are used to identify terrorists.

- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;

- Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;

- People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);

- Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;

- Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;

- People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

The report also lists people opposed to abortion and “groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers” as terrorists.

As we have exhaustively documented on numerous occasions, federal authorities and particularly the Department of Homeland Security have been involved in producing a deluge of literature which portrays liberty lovers and small government advocates as terrorists.

The most flagrant example was the infamous 2009 MIAC report, published by the Missouri Information Analysis Center and first revealed by Infowars, which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists.

The rush to denounce legitimate political beliefs as thought crimes, or even mundane behaviors, by insinuating they are shared by terrorists, has accelerated in recent months.

Under the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program, the bulk purchase of food is labeled as a potential indication of terrorist activity, as is using cash to pay for a cup of coffee, and showing an interest in web privacy when using the Internet in a public place.

As we have documented on numerous occasions, the federal government routinely characterizes mundane behavior as extremist activity or a potential indicator of terrorist intent. As part of its ‘See Something, Say Something’ campaign, the Department of Homeland Security educates the public that generic activities performed by millions of people every day, including using a video camera, talking to police officers, wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application,” are all potential signs of terrorist activity.

The DHS stoked controversy last year when it released a series of videos to promote the See Something, Say Something campaign in which almost all of the terrorists portrayed in the PSAs were white Americans."
More can be read on 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents.

So you want to solve this problem? Here's SCG's analysis of what may work (all of this must be acted out in unison); 1: financial non-compliance. The government & bankers wealth is driven solely by our labor. Cut off all payments, credit cards, loans, & taxes. 2: occupy congress. Don't let these criminals through the doors. 3: call for military & law enforcement mutiny. Call the military to come home, & protect the people from the government, foreign troops (do some research on foreign troops in North America), mercenaries & the like.

And if you are still not yet motivated, watch this.

I've seen people frightened by the tactics I described, and here's what I have to say about it: Sometimes, the right thing to do isn't the easy or socially accepted thing to do. If you think I am "crazy" for posting things like this, while I may disagree, I believe in your right to believe it (I am not a block-happy coward). In this case, if we have no other choice, way may have to do this against the powers that be. We have to play hardball with these criminals.

Also, some people that many others perceive as crazy may not be actually be all that bad (look up the real life "Black sheep squadron"). Sometimes, we have to use unorthodox tactics to achieve the greater good (like maybe the controversial Austrian historical figure Ned Kelly). I am willing to risk getting threatened, intimidated, killed, kidnapped, tortured or otherwise harmed if it means I am doing something good for the human species. Heck, it's practically one of my few true life motivations (to make planet Earth a better place and the human species happier & have animals being treated much better before I leave this place). What matters to me, an individual, doesn't matter quite as much as my species or planet.And don't forget great historical figures such as Ghandi. What if he was so intimidated by the British government and social standards that he got little to no progress done? Chances are, the British would rule over India, Pakistan & Bangladesh to this day at worst, or would hold on longer at best. Plus, what if the troops fighting the Axis during World War 2 were too scared to fight? And the Axis get access to highly advanced technology, such as atomic weapons? Chances are, planet Earth would be a very different place. 
Bonus vids I'd recommend watching: D-day FDR prayer. (two steps from hell, heart of courage) + The World Wars - Heart Of Courage | Churchill Speech . I really like these, particularly the former, becuase they make me think of the greatest generation so far. They might've had common social views that I might not agree with (such as their views on "non-straight" people, hate against other races, accepting forced segregation, etc), but, here is something I definitely do: stamp out evil, even if it is hard to do so. Today, I can get frightened reactions from people for simply talking about how to pull off a revolution. I am not so sure if I would be getting the same reactions from the WW2 era generation becuase of their culture, philosophy, mentality and mindset. You can see a meme somewhat about that here (no, I do not endorse all of the creator's views).
  I know that everyone has their fears, and fear has kept us and our ancestors, and probably will keep our descendents alive. But, we should not be paralyzed or affected by it so badly that I can't do what is necessary.

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge