Why has the State of Journalism & public comment

Come to this?

There’s always been blood

in the typewriters and computers of the world:

Yet it’s Corporate-Media built on weakened Journalism that still REFUSE

To talk about where the real blood is,

Or why the realities behind the headlines are never mentioned.

Why are hundreds of thousands sacrificed daily?

to keep illegal-SECRETS secret?

It’s simple really ­

Everything-here’s been built on lies!

Nothing’s working and hasn’t since the early 1960’s.

The filthy-rich ought to be on the chopping blocks’ of history

And they know it!

That’s why we have the Police-State

Because without brute force, the Revolution

Would instantly begin here and everywhere else,

All over again…

Ask yourself why so much of what you know today has had to come from overseas first? Even after it leaks out, the media here still tries to hide that too! RT, PRESS-TV and many other sources that inform the rest of the planet, are denied to the Amerikans who still refuse to look beyond the headlines, the games, or any of the myriad distractions that are all their lives consist of now.

CENSORSHIP and thought-crimes are real today: And the Outlaws are still trying to justify PRE-CRIME too—because everyone knows the lids are coming off—of everything that’s been done to us since the blatant murder of JFK.

Take a Look at what’s already been done

to the U.S. Constitution!

Beginning @ 3min 07 sec: “Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about working within the system: The same system that’s responsible for the tyranny and the oppression. People want to believe that the system will, sooner or later provide ‘justice’.

The last thing they want to consider is that they should illegally-resist: That if they want to achieve justice, they must become criminals and terrorists; which is what anyone who resists ‘legal-injustice’, is automatically labeled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice—almost always do so illegally, i.e., without the permission of the ruling-class.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

If politicians think they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that as long as it’s called “law” they will enforce it! What is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the lawmakers or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians: When tyrants define what counts as ”LAW” then by definition it is up to the law-breakers to combat tyranny.

Pick any example of the abuse of power, whether it’s the fascists so-called War on Drugs, the police thuggery that’s become so common; the random stops and searches that are now so routinely carried out in the name of ‘security’ such as at airports, border-check-points, that aren’t even at the border, sobriety-check-points and so-on or any other example.

Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to resist such actions? And of course state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their “right” to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home and so-on: You are very likely to be tasered, physically-assaulted, kidnapped, put-in-a-cage or shot.

If a cop decides to treat you like live-stock, whether he does it legally or not, you will usually have only two options: submit or kill the cop. You can’t “resist a cop just-a-little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang-members, until you are subdued or dead. Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to “let” law-enforcers have their way with you or you have the right to stop them from doing so ­ which will almost always require killing them.

Politely asking Fascists to not be FASCISTS

Has a very poor track-record throughout history.

Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court Ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to illegally-enter-your-home; it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, that amounts to giving thugs with badges permission to break the law ­ it makes it a crime for you to defend yourself against a criminal, if he has a badge. Consider the ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment, those words now known as the fourth amendment that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures at the hands of government agents. In Indiana today what could that possibly mean?

The message from the ruling-class is quite clear and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without ‘probable-cause’, but if we do—you have no right to stop us and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights

while we’re at it?

‘You have the right to say what you want but if we use violence

To shut you up, you have to let us.’ I can personally attest to the fact that - that is the attitude that the U.S. so-called Department of Justice (maintains). Or maybe you have the right to have guns, but if we try to illegally and forcibly disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you. Ask Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians about that one.

You have the right to not testify against yourself. But when we coerce you into ‘confessing’ and call it a “plea-agreement’ ­ you can’t do a thing about it. What good is “a right” ­ what does the term even mean if you have an obligation to allow jack-boots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless!

To be bunt if you have the right to do “A” it means that if someone tries to stop you from doing “A”, even if he has a badge and a piece of ‘politician-scribble’ and that’s called “law” on his side: You have the right to use whatever amount of force that is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have “an unalienable-right”.

If you have the unalienable-right to speak your mind, a-la First Amendment—then if all else fails, you have the right to kill government-agents who try to shut you up.

If you have the unalienable-right to be armed—then if all else fails you have the right to kill government agents who try to disarm you.

If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures then if all else fails, you have the right to kill government agents who try to inflict those upon you.

Those who are proud to be law-abiding don’t like to hear this and don’t like to think about this—but what’s the alternative?

If you do not have the right to forcibly-resist so-called “legal-injustice’ that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow government agents to do absolutely ANYTHING THEY WANT TO YOU ­ your home, your family, your neighbors and so on. Really there are only two choices. You are a slave; the property of politicians without any rights at all or you have the right to violently-resist government attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course on a practical-level, openly resisting the gang called government is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there’s a big-difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral-obligation to going along with whatever the ruling-class wants to do to you—which is pathetic and insane.

Most of the incomprehensible-atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large-part to that when most people answer “NEVER” to the question of “When Should You Shoot a Cop”. The correct answer is: “When Evil is Legal, become a criminal! When OPPRESSION is enacted as LAW, become a law-breaker. And when those actively-violating the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

So the next time you hear of a police officer “being killed in the line of duty” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that ‘maybe’ in that case ‘the law-enforcer’ was the bad-guy and the cop-killer was the good guy.”

k) Remember that in the courts of this place since at least 2005, cops have not been prosecuted for any of the thousands of innocent people that they have routinely murdered, supposedly in the line of “their official-duties.” And since 2005, at least, no one here can any longer ever believe anything that any cop has sworn to!

“As it happens that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

Self-Preservation is the first law of Nature” (1)

Jim Kirwan

12-6-2013

kirwanstudios@abcglobal.net

1) When Should You Shoot a Cop -11min 36sec VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ9w1HHRMQw