Category Archives: Police Brutality
September 14, 2016

Knxoville Police threaten to arrest Tennessee Handgun Permit Holders
who ask if they can enter Chilhowee park armed

Members of the Tennessee Firearms Association have sued Knoxville claiming that the city illegally banned handgun permit holders from attending the 2015 State Fair that was being held in Chilhowee Park.  TFA members claimed that following a change in the law in 2015, local governments like Knoxville lack the legal authority under a new amendment to a state law (TCA 39-17-1311 and TCA 39-17-1314) to prohibit handgun permit holders from carrying their otherwise legally possessed handguns in a public park.  The lawsuit seeks to have Knoxville’s gun ban policy declared illegal under state law. 
The city has challenged the lawsuit by claiming in a motion to dismiss the complaint that the plaintiffs have not “alleged an actual injury, such as being arrested, fined or even turned away by police …”  The city claims that without such actual harm — i.e., being arrested — the plaintiffs, even as Tennessee citizens, have no standing to question whether the city was violating state law.
On September 13, 2016, seven TFA members approached Chilhowee Park near Gate 8 in the early evening to ask at least three different Knoxville police officers stationed there if they would be arrested if they entered the park as handgun permit holders in possession of their firearms.  Three times they were told that they would be arrested even after disclosing that they had state issued handgun permits.  The incident was recorded and observed by several witnesses.  Specifically, Ray and Kimberly Bergeron discussed the matter with Knoxville Police Department’s deputy chief of patrol, Monty Houk, as they stood outside the gate to the fairgrounds.

Officer Houk confirmed to them that they would be subject to arrest on a charge of criminal trespassing if they violated Knoxville’s ban of firearms in Chilhowee Park. The discussion was video taped.  When the risk of imminent arrest was clearly threatened by law enforcement, the TFA members politely thanked the Officer for his assistance and clarification and left peaceably – despite having their 2nd Amendment rights intentionally violated by the City of Knoxville.
“It is a travesty that Knoxville apparently did not admit to the trial court that it had established a policy to arrest citizens who have handgun permits and who desired to enter Chilhowee Park so that it became necessasry to have a group of our members go back out to the park with video cameras, witnesses, their handgun permits, their firearms, and purchase tickets just to stand outside the park and ask the Knoxville Police officers stationed there what would happen if they entered Chilhowee Park,”   said John Harris, Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association.  “Government actions like this is why so many Tennesseans are increasingly frustrated with local and state government and are searching for alternatives to the traditional, career politicians who think that they are above the law.”
“The courts should intervene and protect the constitutional rights of Tennesseans particularly when the state has by law denied any authority to local governments to ban firearms in public Parks” said Harris.  “Further, Tennessee’s Legislature perhaps should expend a little more time making sure that citizens have the capacity to enforce their consittutional rights when infringed by local governments without having to do so from a jail cell.”

Louisiana Cops Training For “Civil Disturbances”

Riots could be sparked by presidential election, racial tensions

Cops Shoot Man Lying on Ground with Hands Up

’”….I just got shot.’ And I’m saying to them, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ And his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.’”


I know. The cop twitched with his finger inside the trigger guard… I was a state trooper for 5 years. The cop was poorly trained, scared and stupid. He violated rule #1 of handling any firearm: Never put your finger on the trigger until you are going to fire… Never!!…  FR


‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ legitimized

A Florida man is in disbelief after North Miami police shot him while he lied on the pavement with both hands in the air.

Caregiver Charles Kinsey, 47, was outdoors with an autistic patient Monday when two police officers showed up responding to reports of an armed, suicidal man.

Footage released Wednesday shows Kinsey on the ground, hands raised and attempting to explain to officers the item they perceived to be a weapon was in actuality a toy truck.

“All he has is a toy truck. A toy truck. I’m a behavior therapist at a group home,” Kinsey tells officers, who at that point had guns drawn.

“I’m going to the ground, just like this with my hands up. And I’m laying down here just like this. And I’m telling him again, ‘Sir, there’s no need for firearms. I’m unarmed, this is an autistic guy. He has a toy truck in his hand.’”


Despite his efforts, one officer fired off a round which struck Kinsey in the leg.

Kinsey says officers at that point did not administer medical treatment, but instead handcuffed him – with three sets of handcuffs – at the scene.

“They flipped me over, and I’m faced down in the ground, with cuffs on, waiting on the rescue squad to come,” Kinsey told WSVN. “I’d say about 20, about 20 minutes it took the rescue squad to get there. And I was like, bleeding — I mean bleeding, and I was like, ‘Wow.’ ”

He also got an opportunity to ask the officer why he shot him.

“When he shot me, it was so surprising. It was like a mosquito bite. And when he hit me, I’m like, I still got my hands in the air. I said, ‘You know, I just got shot.’ And I’m saying to them, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ And his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.’”

The North Miami Police Department has placed the officer involved on administrative leave and the Florida state attorney is also looking into the case.

Cops Going Into “Military Mode” in Response to First Amendment

Former top cop fails to mention police have been in military mode for decades

Following the murder of Dallas police officers last week, former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told Fox Business News law enforcement will go into “military mode” in response to nationwide protests in the wake of the death of Alton Sterling.

“This is a game changer. Police now are going to have to worry about force protection, go into a more military mode now when handling any of these demonstrations,” Davis said.

Pentagon Has Armed Local Cops for Over 30 Years.

Police have been in “military mode” since at least the 1980s. The Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act, passed in 1981 during the Reagan administration, ramped up cooperation between the Pentagon and civilian law enforcement. It gave police access to military hardware and use of military bases. The law was used to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

rand-police-stateIn the late 1990s, following the North Hollywood shootout between heavily armed bank robbers and police, the Pentagon provided the Los Angeles Police with 600 surplus M16s under the 1033 Program created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997.

1033, also known as the DoD Excess Property Program, was part of the federal government’s DLA Disposition Services. It transferred leftover military materiel—grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 service rifles, armored vehicles, riverboats, Battle Dress Uniform clothing, and information technology equipment—to civilian police departments. In 2013 alone, the military transferred $449 million in equipment. As of 2014, 8,000 local law enforcement agencies participated in the reutilization program that has transferred $5.1 billion in military hardware from the Pentagon since 1997.

Following 9/11, the newly established Department of Homeland Security funneled military-grade equipment into local police departments. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, at least $34 billion in DHS grants have fueled the unprecedented militarization of police and permitted agencies to buy drones, tanks, and robots similar to the one used to kill Micah Johnson, the suspected Dallas sniper.

Military Response to Dissent

Ed Davis said police will now double-down on a military response to dissent. Left unsaid is the fact police have reacted to political demonstrations in military fashion at least since the Seattle protests in 1999. Norm Stamper, Seattle’s police chief during the WTO protests, wrote in 2011 that his “support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose” during the protest.

“The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy. And young people, poor people and people of color will forever experience the institution as an abusive, militaristic force—not just during demonstrations but every day, in neighborhoods across the country.”

Aaron Cantú characterizes what is happening today as a counterinsurgency waged by the federal government and its proxies in local law enforcement.

“Secretive intelligence-gathering is just one tactic that, alongside cops in Desert Storm camouflage, no-fly zones, curfews and military checkpoints form the basis of a unified and militarized suppression of dissent. Police use of counterinsurgency strategy in Missouri and beyond is a critical component of the militarization of the police,” he writes.

Cantú says militarized police have employed COIN—a counterinsurgency strategy spelled out in the Army Field Manual—for decades. According to Kristian Williams, “police innovations that COIN theorists recommend for military use are: the Neighborhood Watch, embedded video, computerized intelligence files, and statistical analysis.”

Killing the Fist Amendment with “Total Spatial Dominance”

The murder of cops in Dallas will result in further efforts by militarized police to exercise “total spatial dominance” during political demonstrations. Arguing in favor of a more overt military response by police, Paul Mirengoff writes:

Terrorists and radical anti-police militants have taken things to a new level. In response, police forces need to have heavy weaponry and equipment readily available and on some sort of display when protests like the one Dallas occur. And police forces should be evaluating whether they need more heavy weaponry and equipment, not paying heed to those who say they should have less.

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute draws a parallel between what is happening in America today and the Roman Empire during the time of Jesus.

The Romans used the military to maintain the “peace” and consequently established an oppressive police state. “As the Roman Empire expanded, personal freedom and independence nearly vanished, as did any real sense of local governance and national consciousness. Similarly, in America today, citizens largely feel powerless, voiceless and unrepresented in the face of a power-hungry federal government. As states and localities are brought under direct control by federal agencies and regulations, a sense of learned helplessness grips the nation,” he writes.

Eventually, Rome established a permanent military dictatorship that left the citizens at the mercy of an unreachable and oppressive totalitarian regime. In the absence of resources to establish civic police forces, the Romans relied increasingly on the military to intervene in all matters of conflict or upheaval in provinces, from small-scale scuffles to large-scale revolts. Not unlike police forces today, with their martial law training drills on American soil, militarized weapons and “shoot first, ask questions later” mindset, the Roman soldier had “the exercise of lethal force at his fingertips” with the potential of wreaking havoc on normal citizens’ lives.

This is What a Police Looks Like

Despite its racist and Marxist overtones, Black Lives Matter is responding to a “shoot first, ask questions later” mindset by militarized police.

Ed Davis tells us the military ethos—kill people and break things—adopted by civil police with the encouragement and financial resources of the federal government will rule in response to citizens exercising the First Amendment.

This is what a police state looks like. The murderous actions of one individual in Dallas—if indeed the killings were perpetuated by one individual—now serve as a pretext complimenting a pervasive surveillance state with a fully militarized component.

A police state is always political in nature. It is a response to citizens attempting to implement political or social change considered threatening to the deep state and the political elite.

In 2014, writing for PoliceOne, Steve Rabinovich said the 1033 program is less about the war on drugs and crime than dealing with “violent anti-government groups and individuals.”

Former Marine Colonel Peter Martino underscored Rabinovich’s assertion when he said the federal government is “building a domestic military… because the government is afraid of its own citizens.”

Martino made the comment during public testimony at a New Hampshire city council meeting held in 2013 to discuss a decision on whether to accept a $260,000 Homeland Security grant for an armored vehicle.

High court limits drunk driving test laws. Breath but no Blood Tests

High court limits drunk driving test laws

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday placed new limits on state laws that make it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse alcohol tests.

The justices ruled that police must obtain a search warrant before requiring drivers to take blood alcohol tests, but not breath tests, which the court considers less intrusive.

The ruling came in three cases in which drivers challenged so-called implied consent laws in Minnesota and North Dakota as violating the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. State supreme courts had upheld the laws.

While drivers in all 50 states can have their licenses revoked for refusing drunken driving tests, the high court’s ruling affects laws in 11 states that go farther in imposing criminal penalties for such refusals.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said breath tests do not implicate “significant privacy concerns.” Unlike blood tests, breathing into a breathalyzer doesn’t pierce the skin or leave a biological sample in the government’s possession, he said.

Alito compared blowing into a breath test machine to using “a straw to drink beverages,” which he called “a common practice and one to which few object.” He noted that the high court has previously declined to require a warrant for collecting DNA samples by rubbing a swab on the inside of a person’s cheek or scraping underneath a person’s fingernails to find evidence of a crime.

Six justices agreed with Alito’s opinion on breath tests, though Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say he would have found both tests valid without a warrant under the Constitution. Thomas called any distinction between breath and blood tests “an arbitrary line in the sand.”

Other states that have criminalized a driver’s refusal to take alcohol blood or breath tests include Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.

In all three cases before the high court, the challengers argued that warrantless searches should be allowed only in “extraordinary circumstances.” They said routine drunk driving stops count as ordinary law enforcement functions where traditional privacy rights should apply.

State officials called the testing a legitimate condition on the privilege of using state roads. Prosecutors argued that it was too burdensome for police to obtain a warrant every time a driver refused a test because some rural areas have only one judge on call late at night or on weekends.

But during oral argument, some of the justices pointed out that even in rural states police can call a magistrate and get a warrant over the phone in just a few minutes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a separate opinion saying she would have gone further and required search warrants for both breath and blood alcohol tests. She said said no governmental interest makes it impractical for an officer to get a warrant before measuring a driver’s alcohol level.

“The Fourth Amendment prohibits such searches without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist in a particular case,” she said.

The states garnered support from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which argued that public safety is a compelling reason that justified the laws. But civil liberties groups said states can’t criminalize the assertion of a constitutional right.

Adam Vanek, national general counsel for MADD, said his group was pleased “that the court recognized public safety concerns far outweigh the minimal privacy concerns when it comes to a breath test.” Vanek said the group was hopeful that the court’s decision would encourage other states to implement similar laws punishing refusal to take a breath test.

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?



If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

solgunsI feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

supremeThis is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

founderspicI could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much  in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

soulonfireIt is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770’s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

thinkingYou must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Click Here to Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours. Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. It’s now 16 days later and this is still the most popular post on our blog. Keep fighting for what is right. We must stand united..-

Dean Garrison 1-20-13


Freddie Gray Arresting Officer Found Not Guilty

Baltimore city court finds Edward Nero acquitted on all counts

Baltimore officer Edward Nero has been found not guilty on all counts, which included second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and two counts of misconduct in office.
Local officials are gearing up for possible protests or riots as seen when 25 year old Freddie Gray died while under police custody.

If you want a vision of the future….

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.  George Orwell 1984

Planned Parenthood: David Daleiden Speaks out on Home Raid

Undercover investigator David Daleiden’s home in California was raided Tuesday by officials under the office of California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Planned Parenthood: David Daleiden Speaks out on Home Raid

Harris has been investigating Daleiden for months, after his video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s alleged baby-parts scheme. His videos allegedly showed Planned Parenthood personnel actively negotiating the sale of the livers, lungs, hearts and other organs of aborted unborn children.

Daleiden released the following statement this afternoon:

Today, the California Attorney General’s office of Kamala Harris, who was elected with tens of thousands of dollars from taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, seized all video footage showing Planned Parenthood’s criminal trade in aborted baby parts, in addition to my personal information. Ironically, while seizing my First Amendment work product, they ignored documents showing the illicit scheme between StemExpress and Planned Parenthood. This is no surprise–Planned Parenthood’s bought-and-paid-for AG has steadfastly refused to enforce the law against the baby body parts traffickers in our state, or even investigate them–while at the same time doing their bidding to harass and intimidate citizen journalists. We will pursue all remedies to vindicate our First Amendment rights.

Matt Heffron, a former federal prosecutor from Arizona and currently a legal adviser to Daleiden, said, “To storm into a private citizen’s home with a search warrant is outrageously out of proportion for the type of crime alleged.  It’s a discredit to law enforcement, an oppressive abuse of government power.”

Shock Cell Phone Video Shows The LaVoy Finicum Shooting From Inside Vehicle

For God’s sake watch both videos through. We are being MURDERED by the Dogs who kill for the NWO. This was the Fed H.R.T.  team, (Hurt Team — Nice).

Can’t anyone remember Lon Horiuchi – Ruby Ridge?… Same assassins at this roadblock. They will murder anyone in their way and that includes you and me and your mother. And they’ll come to your door if you don’t come to them. Think about it.


Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office calls shooting justified

Shocking cell phone footage captured from inside the truck of LaVoy Finicum, the 54-year-old leader in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation, shows the moments before and after his death last January.

Watch the video in full: