🔥 | Latest

Constitutional: A federal Appeals Court just ruled that Open Carry is a Constitutional Right for Self Defense....Anti-Gun Activists around the country explode in 3....2....1! life guns 2a faith family freedom
Constitutional: A federal Appeals Court just ruled that Open Carry is a Constitutional Right for Self Defense....Anti-Gun Activists around the country explode in 3....2....1! life guns 2a faith family freedom

A federal Appeals Court just ruled that Open Carry is a Constitutional Right for Self Defense....Anti-Gun Activists around the country ex...

Constitutional: TRUMP CHOOSES JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH FOR THE SUPREME COURT On Monday, President Trump announced that he chose Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the United States Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is from Bethesda, Maryland, and is well known in conservative legal circles. “He is a committed textualist and originalist, one whose time on the bench has revealed a unique ability to apply these principles to legal facts. He deeply believes in the constitutional separation of powers as a means for ensuring governmental accountability and protecting individual liberty. From the start of his career, he’s applied the Constitution faithfully, even when that made him a lonely voice. He has done so with particular tenacity on the issue that matters most to the president: taking power away from unelected bureaucrats and returning it to elected officials.” J.D. Vance in the Wall Street Journal as reported by Politico As a member of the DC court of appeals for 12 years, Kavanaugh dissented from the majority in the case of the illegal immigrant who wanted an abortion. He stated that allowing her to have such a procedure was “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.” By the time the Supreme Court got the case and denied her request, she already had the abortion. As a judge who holds tightly to the Constitution, Kavanaugh told the White House audience that a judge should “interpret the law, not make the law.” Brett Kavanaugh is active in the Catholic church, serving meals and tutoring students. He graduated from Yale and Yale law school, and has taught at Harvard and other schools. He tutors children, and coaches girls basketball. His wife Ashley is a former secretary to George W Bush. One criticism of Kavanaugh came from him granting an atheist standing in a court case against the Pledge of Allegiance, according to The Daily Wire. Critics also say that it was Kavanaugh whose decision to call Obamacare a “tax” that allowed Justice Roberts to uphold the disastrous healthcare program. https:-news.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com-trump-chooses-judge-brett-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court- Scotus MAGA
Constitutional: TRUMP CHOOSES
 JUDGE BRETT
 KAVANAUGH FOR THE
 SUPREME COURT
On Monday, President Trump announced that he chose Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the United States Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is from Bethesda, Maryland, and is well known in conservative legal circles. “He is a committed textualist and originalist, one whose time on the bench has revealed a unique ability to apply these principles to legal facts. He deeply believes in the constitutional separation of powers as a means for ensuring governmental accountability and protecting individual liberty. From the start of his career, he’s applied the Constitution faithfully, even when that made him a lonely voice. He has done so with particular tenacity on the issue that matters most to the president: taking power away from unelected bureaucrats and returning it to elected officials.” J.D. Vance in the Wall Street Journal as reported by Politico As a member of the DC court of appeals for 12 years, Kavanaugh dissented from the majority in the case of the illegal immigrant who wanted an abortion. He stated that allowing her to have such a procedure was “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.” By the time the Supreme Court got the case and denied her request, she already had the abortion. As a judge who holds tightly to the Constitution, Kavanaugh told the White House audience that a judge should “interpret the law, not make the law.” Brett Kavanaugh is active in the Catholic church, serving meals and tutoring students. He graduated from Yale and Yale law school, and has taught at Harvard and other schools. He tutors children, and coaches girls basketball. His wife Ashley is a former secretary to George W Bush. One criticism of Kavanaugh came from him granting an atheist standing in a court case against the Pledge of Allegiance, according to The Daily Wire. Critics also say that it was Kavanaugh whose decision to call Obamacare a “tax” that allowed Justice Roberts to uphold the disastrous healthcare program. https:-news.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com-trump-chooses-judge-brett-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court- Scotus MAGA

On Monday, President Trump announced that he chose Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the United States Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is from Bethesda,...

Constitutional: POLLAK: IN LEAVING IRAN DEAL, TRUMP ENDS OBAMA'S LEGACY OF APPEASEMENT OF THE Carsten Koall/Getty Images 🔷End of an Error🔷 President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. is leaving the Iran deal marks the end of what his predecessor, Barack Obama, considered his main foreign policy legacy. Trump will earn credit from his supporters for keeping his promise. But in truth, the Iran deal was undone by its own terms. It did not stop Iran from enriching uranium; it did not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, eventually; and it did not stop Iran’s global aggression. In fact, the Iran deal was not even a deal at all. It was never signed by any of the parties (the U.S., Iran, France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia). It was unclear about crucial subjects like ballistic missiles, because the “deal” was described differently by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and by the UN Security Council Resolutions that were meant to implement it. And, crucially, it was never sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Obama’s disregard for the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution was of a piece with his general disregard for the constitutional constraints on the power of the federal government and the presidency. His refusal to submit the agreement to Senate scrutiny, and his party’s abuse of the filibuster to prevent even a weak Senate vote, deepened the damage that Obamacare — his other struggling “legacy,” in domestic policy — did to American civic culture. More than Obama’s autocratic style, what Trump ended is Obama’s legacy of appeasement. Barack Obama came to power convinced that the United States was at best a negative force in world affairs, and at worst the cause of the world’s problems. He believed that America could be a force for good, but only if it renounced its traditional allies, abandoned its principles of freedom, and gave up its national interests in favor of rising regional powers elsewhere. “The United States no longer issues empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them,” Trump said. Thus ended Obama’s experiment with appeasement and autocracy.
Constitutional: POLLAK: IN LEAVING IRAN
 DEAL, TRUMP ENDS
 OBAMA'S LEGACY OF
 APPEASEMENT
 OF THE
 Carsten Koall/Getty Images
🔷End of an Error🔷 President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. is leaving the Iran deal marks the end of what his predecessor, Barack Obama, considered his main foreign policy legacy. Trump will earn credit from his supporters for keeping his promise. But in truth, the Iran deal was undone by its own terms. It did not stop Iran from enriching uranium; it did not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, eventually; and it did not stop Iran’s global aggression. In fact, the Iran deal was not even a deal at all. It was never signed by any of the parties (the U.S., Iran, France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia). It was unclear about crucial subjects like ballistic missiles, because the “deal” was described differently by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and by the UN Security Council Resolutions that were meant to implement it. And, crucially, it was never sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Obama’s disregard for the Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution was of a piece with his general disregard for the constitutional constraints on the power of the federal government and the presidency. His refusal to submit the agreement to Senate scrutiny, and his party’s abuse of the filibuster to prevent even a weak Senate vote, deepened the damage that Obamacare — his other struggling “legacy,” in domestic policy — did to American civic culture. More than Obama’s autocratic style, what Trump ended is Obama’s legacy of appeasement. Barack Obama came to power convinced that the United States was at best a negative force in world affairs, and at worst the cause of the world’s problems. He believed that America could be a force for good, but only if it renounced its traditional allies, abandoned its principles of freedom, and gave up its national interests in favor of rising regional powers elsewhere. “The United States no longer issues empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them,” Trump said. Thus ended Obama’s experiment with appeasement and autocracy.

🔷End of an Error🔷 President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that the U.S. is leaving the Iran deal marks the end of what his predeces...

Constitutional: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Constitutional: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
peteschult:

libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.


Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever.
Get rid of pigs!

peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may leg...

Constitutional: Bernie Sanders @SenSanders It is Congress, not the president, which has the constitutional responsibility for making war. The international community must uphold the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, but it is unclear how Trump's illegal and unauthorized strikes on Syria achieve that goal. OccupyDemocratsLogic @DemocratsLogic Logic Replying to @SenSanders You when Obama was president. News> World Bernie Sanders Says US 'Kill List' Legal, Backs Troops in Syria U.S. senator Bernie Sanders said he supports sending troops to Syria to train and equip forces fighting the Islamic State group. Photo: Reuters <p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybill</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://tiddynerd.tumblr.com/post/172964801004/military-strikes-are-the-same-thing-as-military" class="tumblr_blog">tiddynerd</a>:</p> <blockquote><p style="">&gt;military strikes are the same thing as military training</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320" data-tumblr-attribution="loopedgifs:MslXj_kAhfMttilamF2mkQ:ZUawci2WdTCtS"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf3b0d142b83060fb444601fe1243fac/tumblr_p6h4vgdy4Y1v1fssvo1_400.gif" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320"/></figure></blockquote> <p>You’re literally a moron. Strikes and combat has been going on since 2013. </p></blockquote> <p>“We bombed this inhabited city as training u guise”</p>
Constitutional: Bernie Sanders
 @SenSanders
 It is Congress, not the president,
 which has the constitutional
 responsibility for making war. The
 international community must uphold
 the prohibition against the use of
 chemical weapons, but it is unclear
 how Trump's illegal and unauthorized
 strikes on Syria achieve that goal.
 OccupyDemocratsLogic
 @DemocratsLogic
 Logic
 Replying to @SenSanders
 You when Obama was president.
 News> World
 Bernie Sanders Says US 'Kill
 List' Legal, Backs Troops in
 Syria
 U.S. senator Bernie Sanders said he supports sending
 troops to Syria to train and equip forces fighting the
 Islamic State group. Photo: Reuters
<p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybill</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://tiddynerd.tumblr.com/post/172964801004/military-strikes-are-the-same-thing-as-military" class="tumblr_blog">tiddynerd</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p style="">&gt;military strikes are the same thing as military training</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320" data-tumblr-attribution="loopedgifs:MslXj_kAhfMttilamF2mkQ:ZUawci2WdTCtS"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cf3b0d142b83060fb444601fe1243fac/tumblr_p6h4vgdy4Y1v1fssvo1_400.gif" data-orig-height="320" data-orig-width="320"/></figure></blockquote>

<p>You’re literally a moron. Strikes and combat has been going on since 2013. </p></blockquote>

<p>“We bombed this inhabited city as training u guise”</p>

<p><a href="https://libertybill.tumblr.com/post/172965026342/tiddynerd-military-strikes-are-the-same-thing" class="tumblr_blog">libertybi...