WHY IS BLACK THUGGERY GETTING A PASS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? VOTER LOTTERY: ARE L.A.'s PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS TRYING TO SUBVERT ELECTIONS IN A HEAVILY DEMOCRAT CITY? ...

One Citizen Speaking...

---

• AR-15s, AK-47s NOT PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT: MY NOVEL DEFENSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- EQUALITY
• WHY IS BLACK THUGGERY GETTING A PASS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?
• VOTER LOTTERY: ARE L.A.'s PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS TRYING TO SUBVERT ELECTIONS IN A HEAVILY DEMOCRAT CITY?
• MINORITY REALITY: GUNS AND CLOSE ENCOUNTERS

AR-15s, AK-47s NOT PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT: MY NOVEL DEFENSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- EQUALITY Posted: 15 Aug 2014 08:06 PM PDT Another weapons ruling based on politics and emotion, not facts … First, let us understand that the the rights to self-defense are God-given and unalienable, that these rights do not arise from a government grant, so the government is powerless to remove or restrict these rights. Second, let us understand that we have the right to defend ourselves with weaponry equal to that of those who would deny us our constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Third, there is nothing about the Second Amendment of the Constitution that is related to self-defense in the home, hunting, or sporting activities. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to reaffirm our God-given right to use force, if necessary, to counter government tyranny and the installation of a hostile government or dictatorship. So one wonders what it is that is driving the judicial opinions of United States District Judge Catherine C. Blake when she ruled the AR-15s, AK-47s, and other “assault rifles” are not covered under the Second Amendment?  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND STEPHEN V. KOLBE, et al. v. MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, et al.  (Civil No. CCB-13-2841)  “Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual. “First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population. “The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used. “As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs profferno evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose. “Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.” “In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State’s legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home. Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld.” Case 1:13-cv-02841-CCB Document 78 Filed 08/12/14 A liberal ruling from a progressive socialist democrat judge … You cannot get any more progressive than Judge Blake. Born in Boston, Massachusetts (1950); undergrad at Radcliffe College (1972); and graduated from Harvard Law School (1975); and nominated for the bench by President Bill Clinton (1995). Bottom line … The United States Constitution reaffirms our God-given unalienable rights and is primarily a document to limit the power of the federal government in such ways as to prevent the government from turning into a tyrannical monarchy or assuming rights that would be held by the states or “We the People.” Unfortunately, most attorney’s are taught that their first duty is to advocate for their client and that the basic precepts of the law can be subverted with clever rhetoric and fancy arguments. Therefore, why should we be surprised when we find attorneys-turned-judges advocate for their client: their political party over the the rights of the people? That the profession of law has enabled a cadre of progressive socialist democrats to form a fifth column to disarm and destroy America and Americans from within should come as no surprise. Using our own laws, or should I say, perversions of our own laws, against us. This is a clear and present example of why progressive socialist democrats need to be thrown out of offices at all levels. And, to deny the progressive socialist democrats from electing uber-liberal judges that see no problem with disarming law-abiding Americans and creating a larger pool of potential victims that fall prey to criminals, crazies, and government tyrants who want to impose a perpetual one-party rule in our beloved nation. Wake up America – we are being screwed! We have the God-given and Constitutional right to defend ourselves and our families with weaponry equal to that possessed by the criminals and crazies that would deny our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. -- steve Related articles Gun Control -- Must See Tv: Chuck Woolery Defends Assault Weapons Gun Control -- Criminalizing the Household: Losing Your Constitutional Rights One Administrative Rule at a Time Federal Judge Upholds Ban on "Dangerous and Unusual" "Assault Weapons" Federal Judge Rules AR and AK Style Rifles Not Protected Under Second Amendment The Most Common Rifle In America Not Protected By The Second Amendment BREAKING: Federal judge upholds strict new Maryland assault rifle ban - citing mass shootings Federal Judge Rules AR and AK Style Rifles Not Protected Under Second Amendment Federal judge upholds Md. gun-control law Federal judge upholds Maryland gun-control law banning assault weapons

WHY IS BLACK THUGGERY GETTING A PASS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? Posted: 15 Aug 2014 09:10 PM PDT Activists, many of whom are self-serving racists, are trying to spin the death of Michael Brown into a civil rights issue much like that of Trayvon Martin. Not so coincidently, the same racist agitator, Al Sharpton, is involved. If it wasn’t for the media misidentifying Martin as white, and the interference of Al Sharpton, the case would have taken its normal course without national outrage based on emotion rather than facts. Michael Brown, the 6’4” – 300 pound teen shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri appears to be implicated in a strong-arm theft in close proximity to the location where he was confronted by a police officer and wound up getting shot. It appears that the teenager was confronted a police officer in the performance of his duties and reacted rather than complying. Trayvon Martin was found in possession of stolen merchandise from a nearby residential burglary and a burglar tool – and yet was not reported to the police by school authorities who were actively trying to suppress the number of black students who were being incarcerated. He was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch captain who thought his actions on a dark rainy night appeared suspicious. It appears that Trayvon Martin confronted the much smaller George Zimmerman. And then there is the thug-in-Chief, the man who is subverting the United States Constitution and the rule of law …  It appears that Barack Obama and his alter-ego, Attorney General Eric Holder, believes this to be a civil rights issue involving race rather than an overwhelming large teenager who is suspected of committing a criminal act confronting and interacting with a police officer. What does this say about a government who ignores the precept of “innocent until proven guilty?” It appears that President Obama couldn’t wait for the facts before injecting himself into the controversy.  But then again, that's what Obama knows ... he was an anti-authority Marxist community organizer/agitator. And, since he does not know how to effectively govern or create and implement public policies -- or defend the United States -- he reverts to his roots.   Bottom line … Black thuggery is just that. And, it appears that corrupt progressive socialist democrat politicians are using local events to rally their base. In each photo, the thugs appear to be giving the finger to America, Americans, and the rule of law. -- steve Related articles The Selling of Trayvon Martin: Al Sharpton's Latest Money-making, Attention-grabbing Scheme Progressives Continue to Smear George Zimmerman and Refuse to Realize Trayvon Martin Might Be a Gangsta Thug Wannabe With Fighting Skills Trayvon 2.0 Redux - Comparing Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin Similarities... Holder dispatches team that 'inflamed' Trayvon case... Sharpton to hold rally Sunday in St. Louis; MLK's son to attend THUG LIFE: Leaked Pics of Michael Brown Show Who He Really Was

VOTER LOTTERY: ARE L.A.'s PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS TRYING TO SUBVERT ELECTIONS IN A HEAVILY DEMOCRAT CITY? Posted: 15 Aug 2014 05:22 PM PDT The Los Angeles progressive socialist democrat party, traditionally the party of lawyers, seems to have found a new way to subvert city elections. Their proposal is to incentivize voter turnout – which heavily favors progressive socialist democrats in Los Angeles – by creating a “voter lottery.”  In one of those Orwellian scenes that can only be constructed by progressive socialist democrats, it is the “LA Ethics Commission” that is asking the LA City Council to consider using cash incentives to increase voter turnout. While vote buying is illegal, buying voter turnout may be permissible in California as long as the ballot has no federal candidates. Bottom line …  Where was the Los Angeles “Ethics” Commission during the city’s redistricting efforts where it appears that race was the predominant factor in defining districts? Creating political dynasties, fiefdoms, and poverty pits? The idea that each area must be governed by someone who looks like the predominant race or ethnicity is a progressive socialist democrat meme. In most progressive socialist democrat areas, voters are a secondary consideration and only important during elections as most of the political consideration is given to special interests and large campaign contributors. That is when the elected official is not feathering their own nests, those of their family and “special” friends. When there is a preponderance of one-party voters in a state, anything that encourages turnout benefits the predominant party. This is both wrong and unethical. Politics is crooked enough. Districts should be proportionately and geographically based on the number of citizens and drawn by a computerized algorithm. -- steve Reference Sources … City Ethics Commission agenda -- Item 8 Action -- Campaign Financing and Voter Turnout Panel wants L.A. to look at using prizes to boost voter turnout - LA Times

MINORITY REALITY: GUNS AND CLOSE ENCOUNTERS Posted: 15 Aug 2014 08:25 PM PDT While I am greatly disturbed by the militarization of local police forces and sheriffs, I believe that there are a few lessons that should be learned from the latest civil unrest in America … You cannot believe early media or social media reports without some form of independent verification. These reports are often wrong, exaggerated, self-serving, or designed to attract an audience. And, when you see non-local agitators featured in the media, they should be suspect and regarded with suspicion. Also, you cannot trust the words of overly-emotional family members or friends. If you join an organized or impromptu protest – especially one featuring known agitators – you are putting your life at risk. If you are told to disperse or to take some particular action by a police, fire, or duly constituted authority, comply immediately without attitude or trying to explain -- by remaining in the area, you are putting your life at risk. If you are arrested, do not resist. If a friend is being arrested, stay quiet and do not interfere or you risk being charged with interfering with a police action. If you are wearing a face-covering bandana or other garb that obscures your identity, you are immediately suspect. If you are a member of a group and cannot be plainly seen, you are a threat. If your hands can not be plainly seen and are displayed open-handed, you are a threat. Do not pick up or handle any property not your own. If you have anything in your hands remotely resembling a weapon (including rocks and bottles) or in low-light can be mistaken for a weapon, you are a threat. If you are carrying an incendiary or explosive device, you are an immediate threat and deadly force is authorized without warning. If you have a knife (which can defeat a ballistic vest) and are closer than ten feet from an armed officer, you are an immediate threat and deadly force is authorized without warning. If you attempt to grab an officer’s weapon, you are now in an existential struggle for your life and deadly force is authorized. The fact that you do not obtain the weapon, drop the weapon, or back away does not mean you are regarded as an innocent, unarmed individual. No officer is mandated to provide a warning to a person threatening any life. No officer should be expected to shoot to wound or fire warning shots – if an officer pulls their service weapon and is forced to use it, kill shots are mandated. If you are a member of a hostile group and accidently are wounded or killed, you are not an innocent victim. If you are a felon and in possession of a weapon, you are immediately assumed to have committed a chargeable offense. If you are on parole and in possession of a weapon or violate the terms of your parole, you should be immediately returned to jail. If you are a known gang member or associate, your charges are subject to enhancement. If you are a known agitator and appear to be orchestrating a hostile event, you need to be accountable for the damages and consequences. If you pick up an assailant’s weapon or otherwise obstruct justice, expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If you or a member of your family suffers a loss, you may wish to reconsider speaking to the media – especially if you have not provided an official statement to the authorities. Personally, I believe looters should be given sentences commensurate with the distance in miles that they traveled to the scene. And, the best riot weapons are often cameras and the knowledge that rioters will be prosecuted, fined, or imprisoned. Bottom line … This is America -- a nation of laws, where individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction by a jury or a trier of fact. This works both ways. Both the suspect and the police officer are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. Anyone who jumps to conclusions or attempts to foment civil disobedience based on an imperfect understanding of the facts is being un-American. Stay indoors – away from windows – protect yourself and your loved ones from immanent danger. Always be ready to articulate that the reason for your use of deadly force was because you were in fear of your life or that of a loved one. Best practices: never speak to the media, and consider obtaining a lawyer before speaking to the authorities. The authorities should be assumed to be adversarial and wanting to resolve the issue quickly with an arrest. They are not about justice or preserving your rights. The authorities can openly and legally lie to you in any discussion. But, most of all – make sure that your elected officials do not disarm you or impair your right of self-defense. The world does not need a bigger pool of victims. -- steve