Offend the Police — Lose Your Job

by William N. Grigg

Leslie BroadbentWhen an employee in the productive sector offends the company’s customer base, he can expect to the censured, sanctioned, or sacked. Customers who complain about such an employee can expect that their opinions will be listened to politely and respectfully. After all, the owners of the company are vividly aware that the public can take its business elsewhere, so retaining their loyalty is a compelling priority.

By way of contrast, when a police officer employed in the coercive sector alienates the public through misconduct or criminal abuse, the offended “customers” are treated with suspicion and hostility. The public will be told to accommodate the police officer’s behavior, and the “customers” will be sternly reminded of their duty to render unconditional loyalty to the agency employing the miscreant.

Since law enforcement cannot go out of “business,” it doesn’t have to worry about public disaffection. The role of police is to distribute violence on behalf of the political class, which is the only clientele they have to please. When a police department is informed of officer misconduct, the institutional priority is to discredit the aggrieved “customers,” rather than to listen to their complaints.

Unlike an employee in the productive sector, a police officer who provokes public criticism is likelier to be promoted rather than terminated. In some jurisdictions, a citizen who files a complaint against an abusive cop can face official retaliation, or even criminal prosecution for filing a “false report” if the complaint is dismissed, which happens in most cases.

As Shawn Peterson has learned, a citizen who uses social media to criticize police abuses can find himself – and his employer – on the receiving end of orchestrated vilification by the police.

Because he criticized the police on his personal Facebook page, Peterson wound up being fired from his job as a cook at Leslie’s Family Tree diner in Santaquin, Utah, in which he provided a worthier public service than any of his tax-devouring antagonists. His termination had nothing whatsoever to do with his job performance; the café’s owners acted in self-preservation after police across the country started an online campaign to drive down the business’s ratings in social media review sites.

Like millions of other Americans, Peterson is alarmed and disgusted by the overt militarization of law enforcement and the impunity enjoyed by police when they kill, assault, or otherwise victimize innocent people. Giving what he now considers improvident expression to his frustration, he posted a Facebook comment containing a photograph of a uniformed figure sprawled in a pool of blood with a caption reading: “This is what a good cop looks like.”
The comment was quickly noticed by members of police organizations that patrol social media in search of reasons to take offense. Cops made screenshots of the comment, learned of Peterson’s employment at Leslie’s Family Tree, and began to barrage the restaurant’s Facebook page with hostile comments in a coordinated campaign to pressure the owner into firing Peterson.

Within a few days, recounts the Salt Lake Tribune, “the café’s Facebook rating began to plummet as negative reviews poured in” from across the country. Acting out of tribal solidarity, and exercising their well-established propensity for habitual lying, some of the police officers who commented on the restaurant’s Facebook page spread rumors that Peterson was poisoning the food.

Leslie Broadhead, owner of the family-operated restaurant, called Peterson in a panic. Displaying courage and character rarely if ever displayed by a cop, Peterson acted on behalf of the interests of his employer, telling Broadhead that “The only way we’re going to be able to solve this is if you fire me.”

The owner agreed, and shortly thereafter posted a contrite announcement to the company’s Facebook page that read like a public confession wrung from a Soviet dissident during the Moscow Show Trials:

“We are disgusted to hear the opinions of our FORMER employee. Fortunately we live in a country that gives us freedom of speech. Unfortunately it can also hurt people who are innocent. … We do respect our law enforcement and appreciate all the work and sacrifices you make to keep us safe.”

In addition to terminating her loyal employee for an opinion he had expressed on his own time, Broadbent offered free meals to law enforcement officers, who – as members of the tax-devouring class – already dine at the expense of others.

That gesture didn’t earn the approval of Utah resident Cindy Moss, the aunt of 22-year-old Darrien Hunt, who was recently gunned down by police in Saratoga Springs.

At the time, Hunt was carrying a replica sword. The officers who murdered him, reciting from the familiar catechism of self-justification, claimed that they acted to prevent “harm” to bystanders, none of whom was in any way alarmed or threatened by Hunt. In similar fashion, the officers claimed that Hunt had “lunged” at them with the sword – yet somehow managed to be shot six times in the back.

The police account was predictably dishonest, self-contradictory, and inconsistent with both witness testimony and physical evidence – and it was just as predictably ratified by the Utah County DA’s office, which ruled the murder a “justifiable homicide.” In addition to avoiding prosecution, Hunt’s killers can now stop by Leslie’s Family Tree diner for a free meal anytime they please. Such are the perks of being part of the killer elite.

“My sister still hasn’t been able to pay for her son’s funeral,” complained Moss in a message to Broadhead, “and you are giving a free meal to the guys who killed her son because they were cowards and created the death of an innocent man!”

The same offer is open to the SWAT operatives who recently killed Jose Calzada after the dejected resident of Roy, Utah called a suicide prevention hotline. The Weber County Attorney’s Office is treating the killing as a case of “suicide-by-cop.”

The officers who killed Hunt and Calzada are on paid vacation, which means they have plenty of time to visit Leslie’s Family Tree and get a free steak dinner. Peterson, who expressed his outrage over such insouciant, privileged violence in an admittedly ill-advised fashion, is scraping to get by while looking for a new job.

After Peterson was fired, the restaurant’s Facebook page, which had been cluttered with hateful and threatening comments from police officers, was similarly littered with messages of triumphant approval.

“You did the right thing getting rid of him,” gloated Officer Joseph Valdora. “Thanks for supporting the folks who keep us all safe” – “all,” that is, except for Darrien Hunt, Jose Calzada, and others whose names are inscribed in the ever-growing roster of innocent police victims.

“I commend and appreciate Leslie’s [sic] in taking the appropriate action and terminating Shawn Peterson,” wrote Randy Rogers, a “Texas Peace Officer.”

“We do indeed live in a great country that affords us great freedoms,” declared “a Southern California LEO.” “These freedoms do not, however, exempt us from accountability when we choose to exercise them recklessly.”

“Very happy to see that Leslie’s Family Tree has decided to protect itself from its own employee,” remarked Officer David Cobb. “She did `the right thing,’ and has shown everyone that while freedom of speech is essential to us all, Leslie has demonstrated that there are consequences for one’s actions.”

Of course, every police officer claims to be endowed with “qualified immunity,” the purpose of which is to protect himself from the “consequences of [his] actions” when they result in actual injury to an innocent person. While Peterson’s Facebook post could properly be described as offensive, it inflicted no demonstrable injury to anybody – apart from wounding the unwarranted pride that police officers feel in their disreputable profession.

One of the comments condemning Peterson, and commending his boss for firing him, was posted by Ed Diaz, a retired New Jersey police sergeant who used his own Facebook page to post a meme celebrating the shooting death of Michael Brown. The photo displayed a barroom sign beneath a Coors Light logo advertising the “Michael Brown special – 6 shots for $12.00”

People in the racket called “law enforcement” consider the reckless exercise lethal force by police to be a public service, but the uninhibited exercise of free speech in criticizing their profession to be a crime.

“This is absolutely disgusting,” wrote Christine Heathman on the diner’s Facebook page. “Shawn’s behavior is a threat to law enforcement and he should be fired and if we’re lucky he should go to jail.”

Apparently, the bold and valiant badasses who supposedly risk their incomparably valuable lives to hold criminal violence at bay require protection against nasty Facebook comments.

There is actually a precedent, of sorts, for prosecuting someone for online criticism of the police. Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Thomas Smith, who had been charged by an exceptionally inventive prosecutor with “disorderly conduct and unlawful use of a computerized communication system.” Smith’s supposed crime was referring to police in the tiny town of Arena, Wisconsin as “f*****g racist bastards.”

Rather than considering the strong possibility that Smith’s assessment was correct, a jury quickly convicted him following a perfunctory trial. The appeals court sensibly ruled that while Smith’s remarks were uncouth, they didn’t constitute a “true threat” or “fighting words” under existing precedents that supposedly justify an exception to First Amendment protections. Despite the fact that his conviction was vacated, Smith was still abducted at gunpoint, shackled, fingerprinted, caged, and forced to endure a lengthy and expensive legal ordeal – and is left with an arrest on his record that will probably cloud his employment prospects – because he had offended the tender sensibilities of armed “public servants” who threaten and exercise violence as an occupation.

Shawn Peterson is not the first person gainfully employed in the productive sector to be fired as the result of a social media campaign by police targeting his employer.

Ashley Warden lost her job as a waitress at an Oklahoma City Chili’s restaurant in May 2013 following an anti-police Facebook post – a photo of sheriff’s deputies with the comment,
“Stupid cops better hope I’m not their server FDP.” The restaurant fired Warden following a social media pressure campaign of the sort that later led to the termination of Shawn Peterson from his job.

“This is what she posts and what she chooses to post during Law Enforcement Week when we are honoring those who have died in service to our citizens – I think that’s pathetic,” pouted Sheriff John Whetsel, who claimed that Warden had “threatened” his officers. Warden “doesn’t have a clue about who they are or what they do or the service they provide,” Whetsel continued.

As it happens, Warden’s appropriately contemptuous view of law enforcement was informed by the “service” provided by Piedmont Police Officer Ken Qualls, who wrote her a $2,500 ticket for “public urination” after her 3-year-old son tried to relieve himself in the family’s front yard.

The Warden family resides on a two-and-a-half acre plot in a small, rural town. When Dillan, the toddler, pulled down his pants, Qualls – who had been lurking nearby – screamed up to the home in his cruiser and announced to that he was issuing a citation, despite the fact that the child hadn’t actually completed the act.

As disgruntled “customers” of the “service” Qualls provided, the Wardens contacted his employer, who said, in essence, “Sucks to be you.” After the family informed the media of what had happened, the ticket was dismissed. A few days later, Qualls was fired by the town council – not for what he had done to the Warden family, of course, but because of negative press coverage his behavior had attracted to the city government. That is to say, he was fired because he offended the only clientele he was expected to please.

Qualls had spent 18 years as a police officer – and already qualified for a pension — which means that he most likely has never had an honest job and wasn’t facing destitution, however much he deserves it.

Unlike Shawn Peterson, who acted on behalf of his employer, Qualls displayed the bottomless self-preoccupation that typifies his profession by filing a lawsuit against Police Chief Alex Oblein and the City of Piedmont. In doing so he acted on the assumption that he had a property right in a well-compensated and stress-free job as a practitioner of state-licensed violence.

Article source:

Hong Kong’s People Have Spoken

Will Hong Kong’s “pro-democracy” movement heed the voice of the people and leave the streets indefinitely? Or remain there, revealing their true, self-serving agenda?

f943f_hk-fatigue_custom-cb62d5b5205d0418134bab42de57d55522678c7dNovember 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – Despite an ongoing media circus in the West portraying a “popular uprising” in Hong Kong, China – in reality the Chinese people and particularly the citizens of Hong Kong have grown tired of the unrest.

After popular demand, the Public Opinion Programme (HKU POP) of the University of Hong Kong conducted a poll asking whether or not the “Occupy Central” movement should come to an end. An overwhelming 80% said yes with HKU POP stating specifically, “almost 80% called for an end to the occupation.”

Bloomberg in their article, “Most Hong Kong People Want Pro-Democracy Protests to End Now,” would also admit:

About 68 percent of 513 respondents said the government should clear the protesters immediately, according to a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong Nov. 17-18.

Surely, with “Occupy Central” claiming to be a “pro-democracy” movement, it will heed the will of the people and voluntarily withdraw from Hong Kong’s streets indefinitely. However, despite the wording of Bloomberg’s headline, those blocking up Hong Kong’s streets are not “pro-democracy.” The backlash against “Occupy Central” is not the Hong Kong public turning on “pro-democracy” protesters but rather the Hong Kong public understanding “Occupy Central” has nothing at all to do with democracy in the first place.

The degree to which the “Occupy Central” has been exposed as a foreign-backed political destabilization is so complete that there is little likelihood that such a destabilization will be possible in Hong Kong, or anywhere else inside of China well into the foreseeable future.

Leaders including Benny Tai and Joshua Wong have all been linked to US State Department funded organizations, projects, and campaigns. “Occupy Central” leaders including Martin Lee and Anson Chan literally were in Washington D.C. earlier this year lobbying for US support in front of the very organizations funding the political activity of virtually every prominent “Occupy Central” leader. Even HKU POP has been implicated in “dirty money” used to qualify an ad hoc referendum carried out by “Occupy Central” ahead of the recent protests.

Heed the Will of the People? 

Perhaps greater evidence of “Occupy Central’s illegitimacy resides not in its documented financial and political ties to foreign interests, but rather the utter contempt in which “Occupy Central” leaders hold the Hong Kong public’s interests.

Before street unrest even began, “Occupy Central” held a “referendum” to gauge public interest in their “proposals.” Only a fifth of Hong Kong’s voting public turned out for the “referendum” which intentionally left out any possible vote to condemn the entire process or the “Occupy Central” movement promoting it. With this paltry “fifth” tentatively “behind” the movement, they took to the streets to disrupt life for the entire special administrative region.

Thousands, or even the tens of thousands the Western media claimed took to the streets at the height of the unrest still only constitutes less than one percent of Hong Kong’s total population – or in other words – “Occupy Central” isn’t an exercise in “pro-democracy” but rather an exercise in loud, violent, minorities posing as a majority.

From start to finish, “Occupy Central’s” agenda of imposing upon Beijing the British Empire’s parting demands when relinquishing control over a region it itself tolerated no “democracy” within, was never supported by the majority of Hong Kong, nor the rest of China of which Hong Kong is now a part of. Instead, it was a foreign-backed project to put a corrupt, treasonous political order into power under the guise of popular support and “democracy.”

Remember the Liars and Manipulators  

Readers should take particular note of the Western media’s coverage of this now fully exposed and verified unpopular “popular movement,” understanding the litany of lies, attacks, and spin used to sell an otherwise unpalatable agenda. From Time Magazine’s promotional covers and their attempts to induct Joshua Wong into their “Person of the Year” line-up, to weepy narratives monkeying similar foreign-backed destabilizations in Ukraine and across the Middle East where the result has been bloodshed and the rise of Al Qaeda and literal Nazis.

Care must be taken in the coming days as desperate manipulators both in Hong Kong and among their foreign sponsors in the US and Europe seek to breath new life into the waning and unpopular movement. Masked men have already tried to provoke local police. Attempts to create bloodshed and martyrs may be the only step left to prevent “Occupy Central’s” total and permanent collapse.

When next CNN, the BBC, MSNBC, and their various regional satellite news organizations attempt to foist upon the public tales of “popular uprisings” that just so happen to coincidentally coincide with the West’s agenda of encircling and containing the rise of potential global competitors, “Occupy Central” and its undemocratic cluttering of Hong Kong’s streets against the will of the local population should come to mind.

Advice for Protesters 
Anyone can complain. Few can actually propose apolitical solutions that will appeal to everyone regardless of political persuasion. People need jobs, healthcare, infrastructure, education, and access to the tools required to shape and influence the world around them in positive and progressive ways. None of this can be accomplished by blocking roads, complaining, or even voting.

It can be done through direct action, community projects, and other ways of organizing time and energy to produce pragmatic solutions rather than political division.

Images: Protests that don’t include programs or pragmatic solutions serve little purpose beyond creating social division, chaos, and even rolling back what is in the best interest of the general public. Real solutions rarely require protests and had young activists attracted to Wall Street’s “Occupy Central” charade attempted to pursue real solutions, they would have certainly been met by partners both across the public and government rather than the scorn and condemnation they now face. 
“Occupy Central” is a documented attempt by Washington to co-opt Hong Kong’s political landscape and use it against Beijing. It hinged on manipulating well-intentioned young people to make life difficult for both the local population of Hong Kong and public administrators in Beijing. It in no way sought or attempted to achieve tangible progress for the benefit of Hong Kong – such as better streets, schools, hospitals, or job prospects, and instead centered around creating a system that would propel “Occupy Central’s” leaders into political power.

Spending months, or even years complaining, protesting, and blocking roads in order to establish “democracy” still doesn’t answer the “what” or “why” of the fight. What programs or objectives does “Occupy Central” have after they “win?” The answer is intentionally ambiguous relying on catch phrases like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “human rights,” because the reality of “proxy versus Beijing,” “Wall Street beachhead,” or “neo-colonialism” is utterly unpalatable.

When a real goal or program is actually established – such as improving access to open source educational resources for students, the creation of creative co-working spaces to encourage innovation and small businesses, or creating a network of healthy organic community gardens – ideas that will appeal to people of all political persuasions, young activists will find willing partners both across the public and the government. The idea of “protesting” rather than simply working on actual projects and programs will finally appear as absurd to these activists as the “Occupy Central” movement now appears to the vast majority of Hong Kong’s population.

Article source:

Article source:

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS

9c7ca_alalam_635380738042802043_25f_4x3November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – A torrent of “foiled” terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself.

According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS’ regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific.

US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat

Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS’ alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria – the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be “contained.” Of course, this “containment” will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change – serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.

Image: A growing chorus among US policymakers and the Western media are claiming that ISIS poses a minimal threat even amid simaltaneous efforts to ratchet up public hysteria. The West also claims it is no longer necessary to “defeat” ISIS and it should instead be “contained” – instead nations targeted for regime change by the US, allowed to continue fighting America’s enemies by proxy … or in other words, ISIS should continue serving as the West’s private mercenary army. 

More troubling still, such policymakers hail from the US-based Brookings Institution, a prominent corporate-financier funded policy think-tank that has helped direct American foreign policy for decades. Brookings “Federal Executive Fellow” Robert Hein, a career US Navy officer, has presented analysis under an article titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” After diminishing the threat ISIS actually poses to the US and suggesting that the battle against the terrorist organization will be perpetual – without qualification he claims:

There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.

It would have been interesting if Hein did qualify that final statement – explaining how an extraterritorial terrorist army armed and funded by some of the largest, most influential nation-states on Earth, currently ravaging three nations while allegedly plotting against the rest of the planet is somehow a lesser threat than Iran and Syria – both of which have not threatened the United States, and in fact, according to the Brookings Institution itself, have expressed a specific desire to avoid a confrontation with the West.

ISIS is a Lesser Threat – But a Lesser Threat to Whom? 

As bizarre as Hein’s analysis may seem, it strikes at a troubling but undeniable truth. If by “US” Hein meant the American people, America’s service members, and victims of various staged attacks aimed at justifying foreign wars, then ISIS is a threat. For the many millions living in the Middle East or North Africa, ISIS is undoubtedly a threat. For corporate-financiers on Wall Street, the many corrupt politicians in Wall Street’s pocket in Washington, or corporate-financier funded policymakers like Hein himself, ISIS is not only not a threat, but an indispensable asset.

As such, prioritizing ISIS’ destruction is not part of Wall Street or Washington’s agenda – rather – perpetuating this threat for as long as possible is. Hein is unabashed about this notion, claiming:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all.

Hein’s strategy also works exceedingly well if ISIS was intentionally created as a proxy mercenary force, deployed by the West against its enemies. Such a notion, while dismissed out of hand by many as a “conspiracy theory” is not only plausible, but in fact a documented fact. The use of terrorists and sectarian extremists is a reoccurring feature in Western foreign policy – including its most notorious use in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980’s where the US created Al Qaeda to begin with. As recently as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh documented a conspiracy to once again use sectarian extremists aligned with Al Qaeda to target, undermine, and overthrow the government of Syria and wage a proxy war against Iran.

His report titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” stated (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

It would be difficult to read Hersh’s 2007 report and attempt to deny that is not precisely what has unfolded, verbatim, beginning under the cover of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” up to and including the creation of “ISIS” and its growing fighting capabilities possible only through an immense, coordinated multinational effort.

The creation of ISIS and what appears to be concerted attempts to justify the slow burn prescribed to “stop it” are echoed in Hein’s proposal of “not stopping ISIS to stop it.”

Why Syria and Iran are Bigger “Threats” 

Ironically, it was an extensive policy paper produced by the very think tank Hein belongs to – Brookings Institution – that noted Iran (and therefore Syria) not only did not want war with the West, but was willing to weather endless covert provocations to avoid giving the West an excuse to wage hegemonic war against the nations. Within the pages of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report published in 2009, it was stated:

With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.

The report would also state:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

The entire report is a documented conspiracy to justify and provoke war with a nation actively seeking to avoid war even at the cost of suffering innumerable humiliations, covert attacks, assassinations, decades-spanning sanctions, and other forms of terroristic provocations.  When Hein and other US policymakers refer to Iran and Syria as a “greater threat” than ISIS, they do not mean a threat to the national security of the American people or the territory of the United States itself – but rather a threat to their own hegemonic interests well beyond America’s borders and even interests that lie within the borders of Iran and Syria themselves.

Deciphering the deceptive, criminal language used by US policymakers illuminates the ongoing conspiracy in which ISIS plays a central part. ISIS is considered not a threat – not because the US can manage what they claim is an inherently “anti-Western” terrorist organization – but rather because the US itself created and controls it. Syria and Iran, while not actual threats to the West, are considered instead “threats” to US interests – more specifically – the interests of the corporate-financier elite on Wall Street and their lobbyists in Washington D.C.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

Article source:

Article source:

i594 I Will Not Comply Rally in Washington


On Nov 4th 2014 a new gun law was passed in Washington that will make as much as handing a friend your gun a felony. We will not tolerate this law and I am going to do what I said I would do in my video.

Will you bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, or will you stand for the liberty of your children?

We’re not waiting for politicians, judges or lawyers. Our birthright is NOT to be touched. We call on our Sheriffs, local representatives and legislators to stand with us and uphold their oaths. The Constitution is the supreme law and our God given rights are NOT open for negotiation. We choose to uphold the law as peacefully and principled as possible, but it will be upheld.

We will buy and sell guns from whom we please, we will not submit to background checks, we will not give up our rights, WE WILL NOT Comply.

On Dec 13th we will hold our first rally at the capital, openly exchange guns, unveil and plan to break apart the entire legislation and violate i594 in every possible way. Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!

This is our time Washington. Lets show the world how liberty is done.

Ultimate Scout Survival Kit Breakdown

Great video showcasing a real-world use scout survival kit by an expert in field craft. A great model for a kit all of us should have.