#make america again: this time without citizen's united - the electoral college- and legal slavery for prisoners | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

godalmightyinjesuschrist · 7 years ago

Text

HORROR,TYRANNY IN FLORIDA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxuuQad3J80

IN THE FOLLOWING VIDEO WE ARE WITNESS TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVING THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATED BY POLICE OFFICERS IN BROWARD, FLORIDA. WE WITNESS A VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN *THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARTICLES ONE THROUGH TEN*, AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STATED AFTER 9/11: don’t quote me verbatim ;) “RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY TO OFFER SECURITY IN LIGHT OF THE [“TERRORIST”] ATTACKS BY USE OF THE [“PATRIOT”] ACT, AND SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL SECURITY ACTS KNOWN AND SECRET”. LET’S NOTE THAT NO COPIES OF THE PATRIOT ACT WERE AVAILABLE TO READ AFTER IT WAS DEEMED LEGAL ILLEGALLY. (IT TOOK ME 12 YEARS TO FIND ANYTHING DEFINING IT IN PRINT - THERE WAS NOTHING ONLINE AVAILABLE DURING MY SEARCHES)?. THE VIDEO IS ONE MORE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF HOW ONE OFFICER STATES ON THE AUDIO “THIS IS A NEW SYSTEM!” AS THE CITIZENS BEING TERRORIZED ARE ATTACKED, FORTUNATE TO NOT BE INJURED FURTHER OR KILLED LIKE AFRICAN AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED INNOCENTLY BY CLEAR EXCESSIVE FORCE, WITHOUT FAILING TO MENTION THE COVER -UPS, AND COORDINATED EFFORTS BY A BROKEN SYSTEM OF NEO-NAZI’S TRYING TO RULE WE THE PEOPLE WITH AN IRON FIST AND MIND CONTROL, PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL OPPRESSION, TYRANNY, TERROR, HORROR....CAPTIVITY.

THIS LED ME TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHEN ARE POLICE JUSTIFIED IN USING DEADLY FORCE? I FOUND THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE - http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-police-deadly-force-20160711-snap-story.html. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT. AS STATED: “WHEN IS FORCE JUSTIFIED? THERE ARE TWO DEFINING CASES. IN TENNESSEE VS. GARNER IN 1985, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT AN OFFICER CANNOT USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST A FLEEING SUSPECT UNLESS THE SUSPECT IS A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE OFFICER OR TO OTHERS. FOUR YEARS LATER, THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN GRAHAM VS. CONNOR THAT OFFICERS WHO USE FORCE MUST BE JUDGED ON THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A STANDARD OF “OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS.”

TO DEFINE “OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS” CLEARLY:

“1.) BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASON, AND

2.) NOT EXTREME OR EXCESSIVE.

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are ((((properly))))))))))???????????? analyzed under the ****Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness ((((standard))))))))))))))))))???????????* [THIS STANDARD IS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL FOURTH AMENDMENT TEXT AS A PRECURSOR TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND IS MORE SO AN INTERPRETATION BY PROGRESSIVES IN THIS CASE TO BEND THE LAW IN FAVOR OF “NEW WORLD ORDER”, A WAY TO CONTROL US, rather than FOLLOWING OUR [substantive due process standard]****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.” DUE PROCESS OF LAW, SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, ARE THE PROTECTIONS OFFERED TO CITIZENS BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FROM TYRANNY. (https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/5017882-Use-of-force-Defining-objectively-reasonable-force/).

Justice Clarence Thomas in position to JUSTICE ironically restated his longstanding rejection of substantive due process: “the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against ‘unfairness (THIS IS A CONTRADICTION, AND A DECLARATION OF NON-SENSE, A TRICK, I CALL IT TREASON). IT SEEMS JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS MORE CONCERNED WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF OBSCURING OUR CONSTITUTION BY BEING OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING A DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOUNDED ON MEANINGFUL, LAWFUL, CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, SOUND PRINCIPLES ALL CAN LIVE BY ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A RECOMENDABLE PRACTICE. STATING THE OBVIOUS, PARTISAN ARGUMENTS, AND DEFINING TERMS TO IGNORE DUE PROCESS IN SPITE OF AND OVER OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT CHECK AND BALANCE POWERS ONLY LEADS TO CONFUSION, BREAKS OUR “DEMOCRACY (WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS FLAWED WITH THE GREEKS, AND STILL IS TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS AND STILL IS RULED BY THE ARISTOCRATS IN CONTRADICTION TO POPULAR BELIEF AND COMMON KNOWLEDGE, THEY DONT TEACH US THIS IN SCHOOL, THE VOTE IS WHITEWASHED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; UNLESS YOU ARE AN ARISTOCRAT AND OF A CERTAIN SOCIAL CIRCLE YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN, THIS IS HOW THE GREEKS ALSO OPERATED”. THIS IS WHY THE FOUNDERS STATED THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAD ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, LIVING IN THE SENSE THAT IT MUST CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE TIMES WITH REGARDS TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT THAT IT MUST ALWAYS SERVE ITS PURPOSE IN SECURING OUR RIGHTS WITHOUT TAKING THEM AWAY, IN HOPES OF BREAKING THE BONDS OF SLAVERY OR OF EVIL OVER THE CONSCIENCE OR SPIRIT OF MANKIND, TO HAVE A FORM OF ELECTED GOVERNMENT TO SERVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE, TAKING HEAD TO PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON’S WARNING THAT THE ILLUMINATI WERE HERE AND DID NOT HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE AT HAND.

INSTEAD JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AND MANY OTHER HAVE PROGRESSED THE ILLUMINATI AGENDA WHILE TAKING BRIBES IN WHATEVER FORM THEY COME. THEIR SENSELESS RHETORIC AND PARTISANSHIP IN CONGRESS, ALONG WITH THE GROSS ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE LEAD US DOWN A RABBIT HOLE TO HELL, TO PERSECUTION, OPPRESSION, WAR, TO BE CONQUERED AND LEFT VOID OF PROPERTY AND HOMELESS. HE IS OF THE OPINION WE SHOULD IGNORE OUR CONSTITUTION AN RE-WRITE THE RULES ACCORDING TO “ILLUMINATI” PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT THE LEGAL PROCESS SHOULD BE BY REJECTING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS DESPITE OF OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IN DEFENSE OF OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

AGAIN, AS WE STATED PREVIOUSLY - THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN GRAHAM VS. CONNOR THAT OFFICERS WHO USE FORCE MUST BE JUDGED ON THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A “STANDARD OF OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS.” NOT ACCORDING TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. NOT TO SAY THAT OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS IS AN UNSOUND PRINCIPLE, BUT IN THIS CASE AND IN ANY OTHER WHEN GIVEN PRIORITY IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL OVER SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ENCROACHES ON OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND GIVES WAY TO TYRANNY, ENDANGERING OUR LIVES WITH A PROCEDURAL “ANTI-LAW” THAT DEFENDS OUR DEMISE....NEW WORLD ORDER. A STEP IN THE STAIRCASE TO HELL. WE CAN AGREE THAT THE EVIDENT IS EVIDENT WHEN ARGUING EXCESSIVE FORCE AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AS WE WITNESS IN THE VIDEO, AND NOT ONLY IN THIS VIDEO BUT MANY OTHERS ACROSS THE NATION, EXTENDING INTO THE WARS WE HEAR ABOUT ON TV, READ ABOUT IN THE NEWS PAPERS, AND INTERNET. WE ARE BEING CONQUERED BY THE ILLUMINATI SLOWLY BUT SURELY UNLESS WE PUT A STOP TO THEIR NEO-NAZI IDEALS AND ANTI-LAWS, THEIR TERRORISM.

NEVER FORGET THE FALLEN. NEVER FORGET THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001.

NEVER FORGET PEARL HARBOR.

NEVER FORGET PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE REASON FOR THE CIVIL WAR.

NEVER FORGET PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND HIS ASSASSINATION, THE TRIAL THAT NEVER WAS.

NEVER FORGET PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON AND HIS FIGHT AGAINST BRITISH TYRANNY IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

NEVER FORGET WE WRESTLE WITH SPIRITS NOT MEN, THE SPIRIT OF THE ANTI-CHRIST, SATAN, THE DEVIL, AND ANY DEMONS FROM HELL THAT DEFINE DARK FORCES, OR THE OCULT.

NEVER FORGET MEN ARE NOT PERFECT AND WILL TRY TO TRICK YOU USING THE THE DEVILS LAWS AND GAMES.

NEVER FORGET.

IN GOD WE TRUST.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

THE THIRD AMENDMENT Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Article 4 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.Section 2.The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.Section 3.New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.Section 4.The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged, and to confront the witnesses brought by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, and to legal representation.The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.

THIS WOULD BE DEFINED STRICTLY AS PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, IN DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTIONS ORIGINAL INTENT. EXAMPLE: WITH REGARDS TO THE DEFENDANTS IN FLORIDA, THEY WERE VIOLATED BASED ON A “PROCEDURAL JUSTICE” AGAINST SUBSTANTIVE LAW, THEY WERE ENGAGED BY PROCEDURES SET FORTH BY AN ANTI-LAW CALLED THE LAW OF THE LAND. DEFINITION OF Sub·stan·tive: adjectiveˈsəbstən(t)iv,səbˈstan(t)iv/1. having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable."there is no substantive evidence for the efficacy of these drugs". (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=DEFINE+SUBSTANTIVE&oq=DEFINE+SUBSTANTIVE&gs_l=psyab.12..0l4.190662.190662.0.192575.1.1.0.0.0.0.183.183.0j1.1.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..0.1.183.IBLZ7TPS06w).Defining 'objectively-reasonable' force. 4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time. (https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/5017882-Use-of-force-Defining-objectively-reasonable-force/]) (THAT AND GIVING WAY TO BROAD ARGUMENTS TO USHER IN “A NEW WORLD ORDER”. NOTE (FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE CONFUSED WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, IT IS EXPLAINING HOW SOME ARE TRYING TO TAKE US DOWN BY DESTROYING OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, CREATING ANTI-LAWS): Substantive due process is among the most vilified ideas in American law. Sometimes it seems lawyers compete to find the cleverest way to ridicule it, as an “oxymoron,” a “contradiction in terms,” or a mere trick whereby judges substitute their personal political opinions for the law.

“Substantive due process is as legitimate—indeed, as crucial—a part of our Constitution as the principle of, say, separation of powers. Note that the phrase “separation of powers” doesn’t appear in the Constitution; it’s an abstract principle one infers from the structure, ideas, and history of the document. The same is true of substantive due process. Perhaps saddest of all, it often seems that the most vocal critics of substantive due process don’t even understand how the doctrine works in the first place. My point here is to explain briefly how

the Constitution’s promise

that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” means not only that government must take certain procedural steps (hearings, trials, and so forth) when it imposes a deprivation, but also that some acts are off limits for government,

“regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”

The confusion may be partly due to sloppy language. “Substantive due process” is an epithet, coined in the New Deal era by Progressive legal scholars who opposed the theory. The judges they attacked for embracing the doctrine—people like

Justice Stephen J. Field

—would not have recognized the term. They just called it “due process of law.” Also confusing is that lawyers today habitually refer to the “Due Process Clause,” leaving out the most important part of that clause: the phrase “of law.” The Constitution does not just guarantee “process”; it guarantees a process of law. To understand what “substantive due process” means—even if one rejects the idea—one must not forget that what this Clause promises is that government will accord us lawful treatment; that it will only take away life, liberty, or property, in accordance with principles of lawfulness. So our first step is to ask, what does it mean for government to pledge to deal with us in a lawful manner?”

Aristotle famously distinguished between lawless, corrupt regimes where the people were governed with “regard only [for] the interests of the rulers”—and lawful, healthy regimes “which have a regard to the common interest.” The former is governed by specific commands to particular persons to do particular things, or by actions that lack any general purpose, or only to the benefit those who wield power. They are “despotic”—more analogous to the rule of a master over a slave. Lawful regimes, by contrast, are characterized by general rules that govern for the benefit of all.More basically, law is the opposite of arbitrariness; it is not the self-serving use of force by those who wield it.

That every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Every thing which may pass under the form of an enactment, is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land. More simply, due process of law means government may not limit our freedom without good reason. What qualifies as a “good reason” is a question answered by reference to political and legal principles. Not everything the legislature promulgates is, on that account, a good reason. According citizens due process of law means to treat them, not in accordance with whatever the majority happens to desire at any particular time, or to serve the ruler’s (or rulers’) self-interest.

if the legislature passes a statute that it lacks authority to make, that statute has no standing as law, and enforcing it would violate the citizen’s right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. If there are inherent restrictions on the procedures by which a bill can become a law, then there would seem no denying that there are also implicit limits on the content of laws that can be made. If law is the opposite of arbitrariness, then the legislature cannot get around the prohibition on arbitrariness by simply labeling an arbitrary act “law.” EXAMPLE: THE PATRIOT ACT.

Ar·bi·trar·i·nessˈärbəˌtrərēnəs/noun1. the quality of being based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."disparate peoples were forced together by the arbitrariness of a colonial map-maker's pen"2. a lack of restraint in the use of authority; autocracy."the law protects the people against the arbitrariness of those in office".

Classical liberals like the Framers envisioned government as akin to a guard: the people in society, anxious to protect their resources and freedoms, “hire” the government to protect them just as the owner of a bank would hire an armed guard. But while this may prevent robbery, the bank owner now has a new problem: he has allowed someone in his bank with a gun, and the guard might give in to temptation and rob the bank himself. What happens then?

EXAMPLE: THE FEDERAL RESERVE and 9/11, THE ILLEGAL INCOME TAX LAW, THE WARS, DEATH OF THE INNOCENT, TYRANNY/TERROR. (https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/02/06/timothy-sandefur/why-substantive-due-process-makes-sense).

Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment)

To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment).

Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution

)BACK TO: USE OF FORCE: “Defining 'objectively-reasonable' force. 4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time.” (https://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/5017882-Use-of-force-Defining-objectively-reasonable-force/

). IF THERE IS NO BILL OF RIGHTS, OR TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, AS IT HAS BEEN SUBVERTED, AND OUR CONSTITUTION AMENDED TO SUBDUE IT’S ORIGINAL INTENT, AND BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF TYRANNY AND TERROR; THEN THESE OFFICERS THAT VIOLATE US ARE AGENTS OF TYRANNY, TERROR, EVIL, AND OUR ENEMIES THE MOMENT THEY CLAIM “THERE IS A NEW SYTEM” - NEW WORLD ORDER.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.(https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution). NOTICE HOW AT THE END OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT IT READS, “TO THE STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE”. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE ULTIMATE POWER IN THAT WE ARE THE MAJORITY. THE ELITE, AND ILLUMINATI, THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTS THAT BLEW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11 ARE OUR ENEMIES. THEY SWITCHED THE “FREEDOM TOWER” FOR A “ONE WORLD” TRADE TOWER, THIS ONE HAVING A TRIANGLE OR PYRAMID AS PART OF THE FACADE ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ON FOUR SIDES (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST - FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD?), ALSO REMINISCENT OF THE ILLUMINATI SEAL OF THE PYRAMID WITH “THE ALL SEEING EYE” ON THE DOLLAR BILL, THE BILL DEDICATED TO PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON WHO SPOKE AGAINST THE ILLUMINATI. IT SEEMS SOME DISREGARDED HIS WARNING, AND CHALLENGED WE THE PEOPLE WITH THEIR TYRANNY/TERROR, THE ILLUMINATI ARE EVIL AND THEY HAVE INFILTRATED THE LODGES OF MASONRY ALSO WHO BUILT THE REPUBLIC. THEIR ARE TRACES EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING GROUND ZERO, THE “ONE WORLD TRADE” IN PLAIN VIEW. WHAT AN INSULT. LETS NOT FORGET.THE INVESTIGATION WAS THWARTED AND WAS GIVEN A MINIMUM BUDGET, UNLIKE OTHER BUDGETS AND FEDERAL EXPENDITURES WHICH ARE NOT JUSTIFIED, TRACEABLE, REASONABLE, OR LAWFUL.

HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THESE TERRORISTS? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

ANSWER: HOWEVER GOD LEADS US TO IT.

“CONCEALED CARRY BY A CITIZEN: WHEN IS IT OK TO USE DEADLY FORCE? When can you use deadly force? The short answer is that your attacker must possess the ability and opportunity to do you grave harm—but you must also have to have done everything in your ability to avoid a confrontation.

Imminence is Imminent.

People use the word “imminent” to describe something they think is about to happen. “I could tell the bad guy was about to attack me from the way he looked at me and his racial slurs.” So “the attack was imminent.” Nope. The word “imminent” means something quite specific when it comes to armed self-defense. It means an attack in the process of happening. Hence the codicil “and imminence is imminent.” You weren’t thinking someone was about to attack you. They were in the act of attacking.

“Generally speaking, lethal force is permissible when you or other innocent life face an imminent, credible risk of death or grievous bodily harm, and imminence is imminent. Let’s start at the end of that sentence and work our way to the beginning.

Death or grievous bodily harm

The possibility of suffocation, broken bones, head injuries, stab wounds, gunshot wounds – they all count as grievous bodily harm. Bumps and bruises don’t. It’s simple common sense, really. Unless it isn’t . . .

Credible Threat

If a bad guy steps out of the shadows right in front of you with a kitchen knife aimed at your heart, that is. If someone points a gun at you intending to do you harm. [VIOLATING YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS THREATENING FORCE AGAINST YOU - AN ATTACK ON YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, YOUR RIGHT TO BE FREE, TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS. EXAMPLE: POLICE POINTING GUNS FOR NO REASON, TAZERS, THREATENING UNREASONABLY. IF THEY ARE ARMED, YOU HAVE A REASON TO BE WORRIED FOR YOUR LIFE IF YOUR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED. TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED FOR NO REASON, ATTACKED, AND HURT BECAUSE THESES OFFICERS ARE AGENTS OF A NEW WORLD ORDER, A NEW SYSTEM AS THEY CALL IT.

Innocent life

If you’re minding your own business, you are the innocent party. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to stop an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm – provided imminence is imminent, subject to the usual caveats and official second-guessing. Same goes if someone else is minding their own business when they face an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm, and imminence is imminent. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to stop the threat against them – subject to the usual caveats and official second-guessing.” (http://concealednation.org/2015/03/a-closer-look-at-a-big-question-when-can-you-legally-shoot-someone-in-self-defense/) YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND OTHERS IN DEFENSE OF YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY EQUAL YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THEM. THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A REVOLUTIONARY WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR INDEPENDENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN.

WE DON NOT FIGHT IN VAIN TO BE OVERCOME BY TYRANNY AND DOMESTIC “FEDERAL” TERROR.

THESE EXAMPLES OF “LAW ENFORCEMENT” VIOLATING WE THE PEOPLE ARE STEPS THAT FOLLOW THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. THESE ATTACKS ON OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ILLUMINATI “NEW WORLD ORDER” TO CONQUER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY CONSENT OR CONQUEST, THUS....RULE THE WORLD, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

TERROR IS NOT A NEW WEAPON.

UNITED WE STAND, DEVIDED WE FALL.

IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO REVOLUTION BEARING ARMS IN REDRESSING GOVERNMENT IN OUR DEFENSE WHEN DIPLOMACY FAILS, WE THE PEOPLE MUST SAVE THE UNION.

0 notes