Proof That the Black Civil Rights Movement was Derailed

I have said, time and time again, that the Black civil rights movement was completely and utterly a failure. The entire movement was a complete disservice to Black folk and failed us miserably. There are those that will hold up the attitude of the country of NOW accepting Black people as evidence that it was successful.  The only thing that proves is that Black people are completely ignorant of the history of the country.

James Baldwin

Most of the United States of America was not racist white people. The Democratic party has tirelessly striven to make us believe that it was, but the truth is, being racist was always unpopular. Just as many white people helped to free Black slaves as did Blacks themselves. Many laws were passed in other states to forbid the recapture of Black slaves as were passed to ensure the capture of Black slaves.

The civil rights movement succeeded in doing exactly what white racist Democrats of the south wanted it to do, ensure the economic destruction of Blacks and destroy Black families.

During slavery it was easy to destroy a Black family. As soon as a Black child was born he / she was moved to a completely different plantation and raised by someone else. Or, as soon as they were of age, they were sold off. Or, as soon as they exhibited any affection towards another Black slave, they were sold off or worse, just beaten, sometimes to death.

After slavery was over the Democrats devised a system where they would give only Black women and children help and money, but only if the father would remove himself from the female. This continues today. In fact more money is given to a poor female who has more kids, ensuring that the father(s) can never be around.

The Democrats then took over the educational system and started rewriting history and events that were squarely reported in the news. It is so egregious that textbooks now have events as being the opposite of what they were.

The Democrats also painted the republicans as being against Black people. For the rank and file american citizen who is a republican they have no power to argue against it, or to say that the republicans were the main ones in the Black corner. But, at a national level it doesn't even matter, because federal level Republicans are no longer Republicans at all, but are globalist federalists.

The last straw was that Black people worship Kennedy and his brother Robert, when the two men almost singlehandedly derailed the entire Black civil rights movement.

After they were through, the Black community and wealth dropped 90%.  It has taken nearly 60 years for the Black community to claw itself out of that hole to be even with the wealth of the 60s, only to be derailed again by the Democrats and now federal Republicans in the crash of 2008.

Here is the proof, from James Baldwin himself.




He clearly states that the civil rights movement started out as an economic movement to make Blacks equal and the Kennedys singlehandedly derailed the movement and turned it into a voter registration and voting rights issue, all the while making political moves to change Blacks from voting Republican [which nearly all Black people did, who had a choice, yes they were forced to vote Democrat in most of the south by the KKK] to voting Democrat.

The Kennedys were not our friends and the civil rights movement did not serve us well at all, it hurt us more than anything else in the history of this country. The magnitude of it caught all Blacks. Where slavery only affected Blacks in the south, post-civil-rights affected all Blacks in the country and was the largest trasnfer of wealth from Blacks to white, in the history of the country.  Where slavery was a transfer of wealth from Blacks to white in the south, post-civil-rights affected all Blacks in the nation and effectively transferred wealth from Blacks to white regardless of location.


Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas DUI Lawyer
See me on YouTube: Seattle Cop Punches Black Teenage Girl
Follow @Kevin_Cardinale

Congress Discusses Should Blacks Get Reparations

Reparations Bill on the House Floor

Reparations It's being discussed and thrown around the house. I believe Black leaders simply expected that since Obama was elected that surely the bill, which is postponed each year, would finally see the light of day. Understand a couple of things before we get into the merits of the bill. Reparations were on their way and a part of the Lincoln plan right after his proclamation. Through the Freedmen's Bureau former slaves had been granted land and a reapportionment was on its way to give all freedmen [former slaves] land as a PART of their reparations. Also a promise was made of 40 acres and a mule to the Blacks. That never saw the light of day and was never honored. Some might laugh at the mule part. But know this, wealthy land-owners in the south kept a stranglehold on tools and livestock. Thus they could keep the freedmen at their beck and call, because they had to return to them to actually do anything on the land. Even after slavery, to the 80s white southerners made it a practice to murder Blacks. This was reported to over and over, from civil war all the way up until the 80s or even early 90s. It is a callous nation that never puts this chapter to rest. You would think that in order to prosper that the gravest injustice ever committed on a human being should be dealt with in the most powerful country on the planet, but reparations is always shunned.

Miss Eryka Badu Shocks the Nation of Sheep that Believe in Collectivism and the Sheep that Believe John F Kennedy was Actually a Good President

Go to Sleep Sheep and Continue Loving Your Fake Notion of King John Kennedy

So Miss Eryka Badu, loving wife and mother of two has done it again. She went and made a video. In her latest video for "Window Seat," she went walking, midday, downtown Dealey Plaza in Dallas where John F Kennedy was shot. As she approached the "grassy knoll" however, she took off articles of clothing. By the time she was on the knoll she was completely nude. She heard a loud gunshot, she looks up in the sky and collapses and blue ink streams out of her head writing the words "GROUP THINK". STOP! This was done before by a white group called Matt & Kim singing "Lessons Learned", who got completely nude in TIME .... FRIGGIN .... SQUARE. Was there even a peep out of this? NO! Did anyone call them bad names? NO! Hmm, then why the negative reaction to Miss Badu? ... you know what I'm going to say.

Don't Talk to Police

What No one Will Tell You About Police

"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." - 1949 opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson Yes the very same supreme court that is the last court in the land has consistently said, citizens should not talk to police. This might be contrary to everything that your bad education has told you. This might be against everything your horrible backwards political church has told you. This might be against everything your opposite-upbringing parents have taught you.

What do all of these people have in common? They have absolutely no understanding of human rights and how the strong arm of the law works.

I have heard time and again of ridiculous parents who have turned their own children in. Instead of them admitting their own failure as a parent, they throw their children to the wolves. So they blame the son or daughter for their own shortcomings and expose their child to rape, evil, real crime and hardened criminals. Obviously being a parent does not come with a diploma. Let's hope by the end of this article you or your neighbor will stop these parents and show them the error of their ways.

But He's Guilty

A lot of Americans do not understand what a policeman is. Oh, they think they do. They think the police are some form of justice. They think that the police are there to help them. In the grand scheme of the long arm of "justice" the police are simply the bullet inside the gun, held by the hand, attached to the arm of justice. The police aren't even the gun. They are the bullet. What can a bullet do? For all the arguments about guns and such, the job of a bullet is simply to kill people. The bullet serves no other purpose than to go inside the flesh of someone and cause as much damage as they can. They are there to enter the flesh and explode, leaving behind shrapnel and a gaping hole, wide enough to hopefully kill the body.

A police can only find, arrest and assist in prosecuting you. That is the sole function of the police. Let's take a look at these 3 duties.

Finding "Criminals"

Everyone lives in this fantasy land that police are heroic paladins that plunge head first into the pits of hell to bring out criminals doing wrongdoing. It is a fact that 50% of a polices contact and job is done through traffic stops. It generates trillions of dollars a year, nationwide. Unless you consider yourself a criminal, I daresay that the police are not FINDING criminals, they are finding citizens they can leech off of. But don't take my word for it, take the word of Officer George Bruch of Virginia Beach Police Department. He says, "I can follow any of you, in your car and the laws are written in such a way that you will commit an infraction. And, I can legally pull you over and ticket you. It is nearly humanly impossible not to commit an infraction." Did you read the last part? It is nearly humanly impossible not to commit an infraction. That means that, given the knowledge of the particular policeman trailing you, you WILL be pulled over and ticketed.

Ok so the police have found their criminal.

Arrest "Criminals"

In the last section we found how police do most of their finding criminals. The police have absolutely no need, nor are they required by law, to be open and honest with you. Let's assume that they are investigating ... 30 crimes that day. They have 30 files sitting on their front seat of crimes committed in the area. They stop you in your car. Now, from your perspective you think you have been pulled over for failing to yield to a garbage truck, but to the cop you are one of the 30 suspects. The cop then barrages you with a series of questions, which you try and answer truthfully.

You end up going downtown. And, you have no idea why. The cop scratches off one on his pad, only 29 more to go.

You think this is preposterous? You're just being silly. It happens, all day, every day, every hour.

Oh, but they only arrest scumbags. Really? Because so many scumbags drive cars and pay their insurance and make sure their registration is up to date. Get real. If 50% of a cops contact with the public is through traffic stops, what percentage of them do you think are scumbags? Little to none. I have reported case after case where cops have been asked to leave municipalities because they were harassing the residents of the town, not arresting scumbags.

Prosecuting "Criminals"

Notice I said ASSIST in prosecuting criminals above. It is little known to the public that police have no authority by themselves. They have no power whatsoever to prosecute you. They have no power to even cut a deal with you. The cannot promise you anything, that is backed up solely by them. They cannot give you something based solely on their own authority. The police have no power.

Police have guns. That is their only authority. Some of you might ask, isn't that enough? No, we are talking about the "LEGAL" world. Remember stuff like "the pen is mightier than the sword"? This directly applies here. The police don't even charge you.

The person that has all the authority, is the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. The police make suggestions to the D.A. The D.A. makes deals, charges you, cuts you some slack, reduces the charges etc. The police do nothing. They simply physically grab you.

Where does their assistance come in? AHA, this is where people mess up, time and time again. Remember the police suggest things to the D.A. Remember the police have no compunction to tell the truth. The police try to get you to confess to crimes.

25% of all cases have been already shown to have been of innocent men and women nationwide, evidenced by DNA evidence. It was shown in the cases that the persons incarcerated were incapable of being at the scene of the crime. In several cases confessions were received from the mentally retarded. Those cases were of the ones tested. So the police got confessions from every one of those cases and quite a few were of mentally retarded persons.

There is a famous case where the police know the person is not guilty of the particular crime, but they have a confession. If they reveal that the person is innocent, everyone from the FBI on down would be exposed to law suit, fired, or worse incarceration themselves.

Let's review a very famous case. Martha Stewart! She was charged with insider trading. A very serious charge from the SEC. But they could not get her on insider trading, because she did not do insider trading. WHY DID SHE GO TO JAIL? They proved she lied to prosecutors and sent her away from obstruction of justice.

Wait! What?

She spoke to the police. The police had a witness that contradicted her statements. The prosecutors then charged her with obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter that she was not guilty of the actual charge of insider trading. They wanted to put her away. And, the court allowed them.

What part was wrong on her part? "She spoke to the police." The police try and try to get you to talk to them. They try and get you to confess. How?

This is how:

• do you know how fast you were going
• if you cooperate I'll go easy on you
• if you cooperate this will all be over
• write an apology to the victim, it's the right thing to do
• if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind me taking a look
• if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind me frisking you
• if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind me opening this
• open the trunk let's have a look inside
• you don't mind me looking around your car
• step out of the car
• step away from the car
• empty your pockets
• empty your purse / wallet
• are you carrying anything illegal

Does that list surprise you? Do you realize that every single one of those are a constitutional violation. Did the police inform you that you had the right to completely refuse? Did the police advise you that they ARE FORBIDDEN to do that if you refuse?

Police count on the fact that most citizens are not used to being stopped. They count on this because it upsets the average citizen. When a citizen is upset they are normally completely disarmed to the situation. That means, the most ridiculous request will be followed. That means that a person may forget about their constitutional rights.

Remember those rights? Sometimes when you're arrested you'll receive a Miranda Warning:

the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the warning that anything said by the suspect may be used against you.

Notice this is a warning, not a right. The right is found in the constitution.

• you do not have to confess to the police
• you do not have to answer questions to the police
• you do not have to get out of your car
• you do not have to empty your purse / wallet
• you do not have to let the police get in your car
• you do not have to open your trunk
• you do not have to empty your pockets
• you do not have to say anything to the police
• you do not have to allow the police to search you on a regular traffic stop

This means, if the cop pulls you over, gets out of his car and comes to your window:

• you roll your window far enough to hand him your license and registration
• keep quiet
• if the cop asks you to step out, do anything else, advise him that you DO NOT RELINQUISH YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

If the cop insists, ask for someone above him.

Bully Tactics

Of course cops use bully tactics to get their way. They know that it upsets people that cops hover around. For the most part cops are more physically fit than the average citizen. They use their size and yelling at people to bully people into relinquishing their rights.

Remember COPS HAVE NO AUTHORITY. Even if a cop wanted to, he could not help you. Even if he loved you, he could not cut you a deal. Get it out of your brain that the cop is the person to help YOU. Save your confessional for your own lawyer. Save your deal brokering speech for the D.A.

Why would you allow a cop to bully you? Remember, aren't they here to serve and protect YOU? If a cop is a bully, simply make a note of it and talk to the D.A. and your attorney about the cop AFTERWARDS. You will not assist the situation by telling the cop, in question, that they are being a bully. He knows he's a bully. He's doing it on purpose. Sit there quietly and accept the ticket. The cop can't even argue with you about the ticket. Go to the courthouse and declare how unjust the ticket is. More than likely the courthouse will rip it up, not the cop.

But I'm afraid he'll do something? What is the cop going to do? Stay in your car and do not get out. You are not compelled to get out of your car if a cop pulls up to you. Just be silent and save any and all arguments for someone that cares and CAN HELP.

If the cop continues to ask you questions, ask for your identification back and ask if there is anything else you can assist him with and if not you'll just excuse yourself.

"If there is nothing else, may I have my license and registration back and be free to go."

After about the 3rd time, they should either hand you back the license and registration or give you the ticket and your belongings. Do not turn a simple situation into a big mess, because you got nervous.

It is the failure of most Americans to understand their constitutional 5th amendment rights. The 5th amendment states: “no person... shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” The police rely on Americans to unwittingly waive their rights constantly, to throw them in jail. In the process of detecting whether or not you have committed any crime, the police may make observations of his own, but the bulk of his work is done by tricking, lying or intimidating you into waiving your 5th amendment right to remain silent. Take the words of Justice Robert Jackson who is quoted as saying in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49. 59 (1949) "Any lawyer worthy his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas Nevada DUI Attorney
See me on YouTube: Shakaama Live

Marijuana: Media, Lies, Rumors and Scandals

Marijuana About to be Legalized

Hypothetical: If my 22 year old son worked all week, was on time, had great job performance and then came home every weekend and smoked pot, I wouldn't say a word. If he stayed home and smoked pot for 2 days and didn't go out driving or anything, I would consider him a totally responsible young man. Knowing what I know, he probably would be completely destressed by smoking the plant every weekend, more than anyone else in the corporate world.



I ask you. Given this scenario, what constitutional right does the government have to arrest, try and incarcerate my hypothetical son? Answer: none. There is nothing that gives the Federal Government the authority to even have a drug ENFORCEMENT agency. In fact the DEA spends millions every year jailing, trying and arresting people involved in smoking the plant. Even worse, they spend millions raiding and arresting medical doctors and medical marijuana dispensaries. The facts are loud though. Criminal behavior surrounding marijuana is next to zero. Driving under the influence of marijuana and causing accidents or fatalities is such a low number that it is nearly unrecordable. Yet, alcohol kills hundreds of thousands every year. Just drinking alcohol in large quantities is toxic to the human body and can result in death. This is accomplished just by drinking it. Marijuana on the other hand has no toxic levels. They did a test once to prove marijuana was toxic. However, what they did was induce lab animals to inhale the marijuana, however, in the process they suffocated the animals. So instead of testing the toxic levels of marijuana, they simply tested how long the animals would take to suffocate without air in a pot smoke filled box. Don't be confused. the LD50 test is a farce. Since it is a natural plant, it has no toxicity, no lethal side effects and does not lead to anything.

California is taking steps to finally decriminalize marijuana. The prohibition is both extremely expensive and blatantly pointless. They have come to the realization that they have been criminalizing a plant that is both non-toxic and harmless. California is about to blow the doors off of marijuana. Billions in state deficit, no toxic levels of marijuana, little to no evidence of criminal behavior surrounding the plant, they are going to end the prohibition against marijuana and start regulating the sale of it and get taxes.

Everyone knows the story of how it was criminalized. They brought about the prohibition of marijuana, not for the sake of health concerns, not for the sake of criminal concerns, not for the sake of safety concerns. They passed the law to prohibit marijuana because it was in competition with paper produced from wood. That competition cut into the profits of the wood production and was targetted to become prohibited because the NON-INDUSTRIAL variety of the plant had lethargic side effects. That means, the industrial plant, was lumped together with the non-industrial plant and both were made illegal. They used as an excuse the fact that the non-industrial variety was being smoked by large sectors of the population and were seen to be lethargic, euphoric and happy. This lethargic state was pointed to as being "not normal" and therefore dangerous. They especially targeted Blacks and Mexicans as bringing and using marijuana in the U.S.. After America criminalized marijuana use, the international scene saw how lucrative this would be for them to also criminalize it. Nowhere, was the point missed that it was criminalized for monetary purposes.

If you take a look at most products we consume, none of them ever induce lethargy or calming effect. Most products contain sugar or caffeine, or both. The lesson is obvious. It is OK to be anxious, but it is not OK to be calm. You'd be hard pressed to find "soothing" "relaxing" on beverages, or smoking products. Calming effects are considered dangerous and abnormal. I don't think this is by accident. I think this is intentional. People die of anxiety, heart attack, stress related illnesses. No one is dying from lethargy, calmness or relaxation.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to have an enforcement arm that works within the U.S. territory. The only power they have is to create and maintain a militia. This is to fight outside threats. Everyone has turned their head, because their pockets were greased. The entire system is now corrupt. I guarantee you no one is talking about this except me. [the unconstitutionality of the DEA] I guarantee you that no one wants you to know it's illegal to have a DEA. If anyone is supposed to have a DEA, it is the states. The federal government has no right to come into a state, overstep their own enforcement arms and arrest a citizen of a state. Think about that scenario for a second, FBI, DEA, internal *gasp* CIA [if you didn't know the CIA spies on American citizens your head is under a rock], all all usurping the power of a state. And, to add insult to injury, you're paying for both the state law enforcement and the federal government enforcement. Maybe if you think about your pocket book for a second you'd see just how terrible the picture is.

No one is saving lives by putting pot smokers in jail. No one is saving lives by shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries. No one is saving lives by arresting doctors who know that no pharmaceutical drug is going to cure their patient and thus prescribe cannabis, which has TREMENDOUS medicinal uses. That's what big pharma doesn't want you to know. Marijuana can cure tons of diseases, prescription drugs can't.

Wake up, before it is too late.

[for those of you wondering: I don't have a son. I don't even have friends that smoke pot. I have never smoked so much as a cigarette or drank alcohol ever in my entire life. I have never used any drugs whatsoever. However, if someone next to me wants to drink or smoke, I am not going to beat them over the head, because it's not my frikkin business. If a man can suit up and strap on a machine gun and die a bloody death because a politician says so, he better damn sure be able to smoke pot in the privacy of his own home to destress from all the crap he just had to go through. If someone feeds you a line that it's for his own safety, check their income checks, I bet you the drug companies or the industrial companies are paying him.]

Please visit my legal website: Nevada DUI Attorney
See me on YouTube: Shakaama Live

Eating While Black

Scenarios of eating while black

I'm sitting enjoying ice cream with my wife at the local mall. We had just finished our Christmas shopping. I was going over in my head the list of toys I had bought and that secret something for the misses, she didn't know about. Well I hoped she didn't know, but I'm sure she probably knew about it before I even thought about it. The food court has a nice open ceiling to it. The snow gently fall through it, but we're warmed by electric braziers set around the food court. Suddenly I'm surrounded by 25 men in military fatigues, all pointing machine guns at me. I'm ordered to stand up and to get on the wet ground. People gasp and hide their children's faces. The armed men grab me and tell me to take my hands out of my pockets. At this point, I've had about enough of this. They say they are cops. Then suddenly my vision goes dark and pain shoots throughout my body. My heart! I've been tazered by these white thugs in front of everyone, and I look and see that my wife is too.



- This is the case of Major T Lemon on December 24th, 2007 in Wisconsin. There was an anonymous 911 call saying there was a "man" standing in the food court and that someone saw a gun. Apparently Wisconsin is one of the states that outlaws the constitutional right to bear arms. It seems the millions of idiots that live there have never sued the state on the basis of its unconstitutional laws. Be that as it may, this man was eating Gelato [Italian for ice cream] and ended up in the hospital, and was even charged for resisting arrest, although clearly no gun was found. He was simply eating while black. He was even trespassed off the property.

In this instance, the police did absolutely no police work. They had an anonymous tip with unsubstantiated corroborative evidence. In fact the victim in this case, Mr. Lemon, had all of his constitutional rights violated. Checking into the story a bit deeper Mr. Lemon was being targeted and the police were the goon squad that were the trap sprung in full view of the public. This was not a case of mistaken identity, it was a case of completely false information.

Mr. Lemon was an outspoken critic of the police, and the police were all too happy to carry out injustice and public humiliation. Least of the commentary about this situation is the fact that Wisconsin is a bastion of unconstitutionality. I can even imagine that when the police arrived at the mall, they saw Lemon first and then went to the security booth and pointed him out to see if he were the guy with the gun. Of course Lemon had no gun. But, at that point the whole scenario of the gun was beyond the police and they had their "scumbag" with his wife twitching on the ground. Thankfully, Lemon's bad heart did not burst from the tazer or the full blown nightmare of their police debacle would have been evident.

The media was all too happy to paint Mr. Lemon as a "scumbag". Not a single report came on the side of Mr. Lemon. Instead of reporting "Innocent Man and Wife Tazered While Eating Gelato at Local Mall" they all ran with "Suspected Gun Man Tazered in Local Mall". Who cares that no gun was found? Who cares that no OTHER gun man was found? Gone is any notion of independent reporting. Either the police have the paper editors by the balls or the newspaper felt it their obligation to paint a Black man as some scary gun toating menace to society. Except,... he was sitting eating gelato with his wife, a very unlikely scenario. This fact is lost on both the media and the police.

---

I'm sitting enjoying a nice fresh lobster, fresh squeezed lemon with my bib on, enjoying the meal with my friends. Suddenly [yes i did nothing but eat] a cop appears before me and tells me to "stand up and keep your hands where I can see them". Clearly this guy is something out of deliverance. He shoves me and then he and his buddy cop throw me to the ground and handcuff me.

- This is the real life story of Baltimore Raven rookie Tony Fein. Fein attended Ole Miss and was signed as a free agent in June following a minicamp tryout. He is an Iraq veteran who served in the Army for more than three years before playing college ball. In two seasons at Ole Miss, he had 136 tackles (77 solo) in 24 games, according to the Ravens Web site. The real story is that one of the restaurant employees saw a group of white men passing what he thought was a gun from one to another at the table, but it turned out to be a cell phone. The officers arrived on the scene and went over to Fein instead. A clear case of eating while black. Regardless of what reports say, Fein has never been in trouble with the law and has never owned any weapon. The cop tried to say Fein shoved him and caused him to fall and injure his elbow. Fein was charged with assaulting a police officer, yet immediately released.

This isn't even a case of mistaken identity. The call was made about the white group of men. The policeman took it upon himself to turn away from the white group and harass Mr. Fein. It isn't even a case of bad police work, because the dirty cop knew who the suspects were. I would hope that Mr. Fein would not only seek a very lucrative law suit, but seek to have both dirty cops removed off the streets of Baltimore.

In any instance were police are the bullies and antagonist, it is our duty to have them removed from the force. There is simply no leeway given to someone that has a gun, and can kill citizens without remorse to be in such a position. Everyone wants to jump on the side of the police, when it is the citizens that are at the end of these dirty cops. Police have to be better, faster, stronger and smarter, not dirty, degenerate, low-life, scum and villany. Police have to know the constitution like the back of their hands. They cannot plead ignorance, nor seek leeway in their line of duty.

Regarding and observing our constitutional rights is the minimum benchmark for police work to begin. We cannot say "but he's doing his police work, cut him some slack". If the police have to step on the constitution to perform their line of work, then they don't need to be police. Why? Because thousands upon thousands of good cops are out there all day long that don't tread on the constitution as an excuse for doing their duty or carrying out police work. It is an insult to these good cops to say that the scumbag cops are our lowered expectations of how police work is handled. Do we lower the bar for the retards on the police force to function? Or, do we keep the bar to the expectations we have for the good cops to perform.

---

Conclusion

While white people often feel that Black people inordinately portray themselves as being the targets of race, they only do so when they think the person saying so is beneath them. There have been thousands of reports of doctors, lawyers, police chiefs, judges, etc... that have all come out and said they have been the target of racism also. If all the ducks quack, don't you think perhaps, just perhaps you might want to go check the shed for the fox?

I'm the victim of racism by the police all the time. Almost exclusively so. In fact, since I have been out of school, the only racism I have received has been from police and no one else. At 6'3 240lbs and good looking, most normal citizens wouldn't dream of antagonizing me, but not the police. When I managed stores and called for help, they didn't show up. And, I don't live in a bad neighborhood. I nearly have a doctorates degree and carry myself like I own the world. I said that to say, I have no reason to nonchalantly play the race card.

The police are out of control. There is zero police work done these days. They think that cutting corners is the way to go.

What you should do if you're stopped by the police while eating while Black -

• remain absolutely silent to any questions
• if asked for anything tell them you do NOT give them permission
• if asked to stand, sit, move, come, go inform them that you do not give them permission to order you around and it is against your constitutional rights
• ask for their superior to come to the sight
• request to see their badge and I.D. [there are not too few cases of people impersonating cops who take people from public view and murder them]

If you are afraid of going to jail, you're going to jail anyway. Get it in your mind that you are going to jail. Based on this viewpoint then, not giving police permission to completely rape you and trash all of your CONSTITUTIONAL rights is your DUTY. YOU have to protect your constitutional rights. Dirty scumbag cop? Yes, even against a scumbag cop. Cops rely on you to violate your own constitutional rights. Cops rely on your to give up your rights by giving them permission.

1. if you do not give your permission to be searched, they cannot search you
2. if you do not give your permission to be seized, they cannot seize you
3. if you do not give your permission to be ordered around, they cannot order you around

Anyone who would say that you not giving permission is not "cooperating with the cops" are neither a patriot, nor even intelligent. It is your duty to protect yourself, even against cops. We live in a day and age where our survival is threatened by both criminals and cops. If you don't wake up and realize this, you'll end up not only with your constitutional rights trampled on, you can end up dead easily. Police carry guns and aren't afraid to use them.

Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas DUI Attorney
See me on YouTube: Shakaama Live

Why School Uniforms are a Horrible Idea

The Lie of School Uniforms

We've been fed this line that school uniforms are the answer to a whole host of problems in school these days. Everyone looks to Catholic schools as the model for the success of a school uniform. What they don't realize or don't want to tell you is that a Catholic school uniform means a completely different viewpoint than a public school uniform. In fact it would seem antithetical to even suggest a uniform for the mass public that attends government run schools.

Catholic school uniforms are meant as a cohesive bond between those that attend, so that the child growing up knows that they are separated from those not attending. It stands to reason, since not everyone is Catholic, nor religious. Also, you get a really good education at a Catholic school, unlike what you receive in government run schools. So while the child might be wearing a very set uniform, their mind is completely let loose to a very wide scope of education. There is no comparison between a public education and a Catholic private school education. At a catholic school, you learn not only your viewpoint, but also the viewpoint of others. The sciences are extremely advanced and the social studies covers nearly every aspect of history. For all its reputation for dogma, Catholic schools would teach history in a very wide scope and be twice less dogmatic than a public school.

"I am totally AGAINST school uniforms! One reason, of many, is Safety of the Students. For example: During a natural disaster (God Forbid) Earthquake, Tornado, etc,... How would a Parent I.D. their child? By the clothes that they were wearing, when they left home. What if a Senior decided to attack a 9th -or- 10th grade student. How would the victim describe the attacker? Let's see, Khaki Pants - Navy Blue Shirt - Brown Shoes. You get the picture. This was, is, and will ALWAYS BE a VERY BAD idea. "

So although public schools try to point to Catholic school as the model for the reasoning behind a success in a school uniform, there is no comparison with what goes on inside the school. Some of the reasoning they give is:

• cut down on school violence, since gangs identify themselves through clothing and colors
• cut down on preparation time for school, since there is no choices to make
• cut down on distractions in class, since there would be nothing but a boring uniform to look at
• cut down on the cost of clothing for growing children [ this is a complete lie, but this is what they put forth as a reason, regardless of the fact that the uniform can range around $100 for one day's uniform ]
• cut down on social stigma of a disparity between rich kids vs poor kids
  

Speaking of social stigma, my mother didn't own shoes until the 3rd grade. Even then, the shoes she received were hand_me_downs from an older sister. Kids actually don't know status symbols in clothing unless the parent teaches them. Children will play with a poor or rich kid and not prefer one over the other, unless the parent steps in and teaches them this class hatred. But, those are the reason they give you for school uniforms. They stress the violence part. They stress that gang violence is dictated by clothing and gang colors. This smacks of two issues that we, as stupid Americans, are supposed to swallow

• gang violence will always be with us and there is no alternative but to try to cut corners where we can
• gang members are not actual thinking humans who can reason who is and who isn't a gang member

They are trying to suggest that there is no answer to gang violence in schools, but to thwart them by removing gang clothes and gang colors. Also that your child, who is in a gang, will suddenly become safe and secure from opposing gangs simply by wearing expensive state dictated clothes. Of course this isn't true at all. Not only is there a way to cut down gang violence, but gangs and any malcontents can be permanently removed from schools with one easy wave of a pen. Remove them from school! The problem is that administrators and teachers too are far too lazy to remove true malcontents.

"Not everyone should be punished for other peoples crimes! "

Oh but wait, school administrators and teachers know who to pick on. They oust kids all day long. They oust kids they know who's parents won't do anything or who's parents are too stupid to stick up for their kids. These are the kids that get ousted from school, not the genuine violent gang member. They impose their authority where it is not needed, instead of where it is sorely lacking.

"School is also the place where the next actors, writers, artists, politicians, inventors, designers and and musicians are trained. School uniforms send a clear early-life message to students that conformity is important and creativity is not, that authority is allowed to abuse it's power and constrain our constitutional right to free speech and expression. Students learn from uniforms that their individuality, political opinions and religious rights are unimportant, as is their education: students are regularly suspended for non compliance to the uniform code even if their school work is excellent. If uniform-requiring schools were actually in 'the business of learning' this would not occur."

So, in essence, the gang violence as a reason for imposing school uniforms is a red hearing. It is not the real reason for imposing school uniforms upon an unsuspecting public.

The Truth Behind School Uniforms

As stated before, schools impose their authority all day long on those who virtually or ignorantly can't fight back. So then what is the real reason behind a school uniform?

"RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH" - Cartman South Park

That's correct, the real reason behind school uniforms is not for the protection of your kid, nor is it for the cost savings to you, nor looking out for your best interest. The real reason for school uniforms is to give ultimate authority to the school / state. They wish to continuously remind the child that the school, and thereby the state, is the ultimate authority. And this uniform they see all day, every day, is a constant reminder of "who's in charge." In fact, the school is in so much control that they can make a parent put clothes on a child they say, and not what the parent says. It goes so far as to impose this on Jewish people's children wearing yarmulkes, or Islamic people's children wearing burkas. How insane is that?

For those parents who ignorantly defend school uniforms, understand that the day and hour draws near where your own personal freedoms are also infringed upon. While you stupidly defend the school uniform thinking it reduces gang violence, behind the scenes the yarmulkes, burkas, crucifix necklaces, heirloom rings and a whole host of personal items are also being removed.

Clearly wearing a yarmulke is gang violence inducing. Clearly a burka is gang violence inducing. Clearly a crucifix necklace is gang violence inducing. [end sarcasm] Obviously we are too stupid to realize when we've been had, hood winked, bamboozeled. But public schools imposing school uniforms is the tip of the iceberg. Our government wants us to conform to its demands. Why not start out early and catch children in developmental stages, so they are completely used to the idea as being the ultimate authority instead of the father or mother. Why not completely cut off our children's heads at the neck so that they never develope the where withal to question martial law, house arrest for minro infractions, mandatory sentencing for personal use drugs.

The constitution is dead. And, you people did it. I hope you all wake up and realize it. This unform issue is just another collectivist notion. That means, someone said let's put uniforms on children, and then sold a line of bull to bleeding heart idiots that are too stupid to think for themselves. Then these bleeding hearts thought to themselves, yes "for the greater good" we need to have uniforms in public schools. That is a collectivist notion. Understand that Nazi Germany started the same way. So unless you're a Nazi I recommend you desist in trying to impose your will upon other parents, simpley because you think it's a good idea.

How to Defeat School Uniforms in Your Kid's School

It would be remiss of me to give you a topic and then not give you a sound and wise resolution to the issue. First of all, understand how serious a matter this is. We are talking about your child and your child's future as an adult. Understand that this is no laughing matter, nor is it a frivilous one. People are quick to dismiss serious issues they don't want to talk about or that they are uncomfortable with or just plainly ignorant about. Instead of them facing their problems or educating themselves, they try to instead laugh it off. Don't be that person. We must be strong men and women and Americans. You must sacrifice so that your children and children's children can have a brighter future.

I hope that was enough to get across that I am stressing this is a serious issue.

The answer to the issue then is you must spare no expense in getting rid of school uniforms. If they oppose you with "but you're promoting gang violence if you remove school uniforms," you have to respond with "that's what the police are paid for, to get rid of criminals." Surely a policeman making $100,000 / year can take time out of his busy schedule to arrest and remove undesireable children involded in gang violence from a school. They even have gang task forces now, so there is no excuse about gang violence.

Be prepared to go to court. Lawyers are not only good for representing sheisters in our country, but they can also be your best friend in protecting your own freedoms. It would be nothing but joy to a lawyer to sue a whole school board and / or state on your behalf to defend your constitutional freedoms. I recommend demanding a meeting with the school board and sending them your demand in writing before the meeting so that there is nothing left open to discussion. You should demand they remove school uniform requirements immediately. If, when you go to the meeting, you could, bring your lawyer friend with you, not only to hear the meeting first hand, but also to impress upon them, how serious you are about the matter. If they do not remove the uniform requirement immediately, go to court and file.

It is really just that simple. If you cannot afford it personally, call as many parents as you can and gather them all under one lawyer. That is even more icing on the cake for a lawyer, a class action lawsuit.

Lastly, it may be the case that the lawyer might say the supreme court already said, 30 years ago that the school has a right to dictate what a kid can wear and that the constitution doesn't apply to children. If the constitution doesn't apply to children, that would mean the police could come in and take all of your children and make them into slaves and work for the state. You laugh, but that's exactly how ridiculous that statement is. The constitution applies more so to children than any of us. Because, the constitution is to protect those against the state, who can't defend themselves. Who does that define more than a child? No one! Find a lawyer that is enlightened enough to understand that. Once you find such a lawyer, the rest will be gravy.

The school / state has no business telling parents what their child can and cannot wear. Should you get anything other than a "yes and thank you for bringing that to our attention," [ meaning if you feal threatened by the school board or some other governmental entity ] walk, no RUN to your lawyer and tell him.

Educate yourself on the constitution.


[none of this is to be construed as legal advice]

Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas DUI Attorney
See me on YouTube: Shakaama Live