A New Plan of Action

by Thomas Mick

Since writing my article, A Plan of Action, in January of 2014, the tyranny of the oligarchs controlling America has become increasingly and openly hostile to American principles and our Natural Rights. The oligarchs seem to have no more need for masking either their contempt for individual liberty or their intentions for its destruction. The plan I proposed in 2014, utilized the Grand Jury under common law and constitutional Sheriffs as important components for identifying and removing agents of the oligarchy in our local government; my thinking along those lines has changed considerably since. 

In late February 2015, I came across a research report I had read initially in the late 90’s; a report I couldn’t bring myself to accept at that time because of cognitive dissonance. I wasn’t ready in my heart and spirit to accept what the report revealed; the Constitution hasn’t been in force and effect since March 27, 1861, when 7 of the 34 states in the Union at that time walked off the floor of Congress and seceded from the Union. It wasn’t a lack of quorum that destroyed the Union, it was the refusal of the Northern States to address the legitimate issues of the South; namely, to stop forcing them to pay a disproportional share of the expenses of the Federal Government, through the confiscatory tariffs imposed on their imports from Europe in exchange for their tobacco and cotton exports.  

The intransigence of the northern mercantile states, caused the separation of the southern agrarian ones, by violating the Natural Rights of the people in those states to defend their economies from the majority votes in the North. Under the Union, the South simply could not muster the votes in Congress to represent their interests against the mercantile interests in the North. I believe this economic tyranny, made remaining in the Union intolerable to the people of the South. Once force was used to impose the will of the North on the South, I believe it invalidated the Constitution that formed the Union, since there was no longer a mutually beneficial agreement between the States and the Federal government it created. All of this history is to illustrate an important fact, the people have not been served by the Constitution, since early 1861.  

Until we destroy the corporate system built by the oligarchy that gained control of the republic, constitutional arguments are irrelevant in their courts; making them is wasting time and resources fighting in a system designed to defeat us. The oath of office taken by officials, in both state and Federal office today, is to the corporate Constitution of the United States of America, not the organic Constitution for the United States of America. Everything about the paradigm we’re in today is a counterfeit of what was founded, in 1788.

All the discussion of constitutional law is meaningless in our fight to return to liberty, and the oligarchs know it; they neutralized that troublesome document generations ago through the law of necessity. Since then, we’ve been living under an illusion they needed to maintain, while they subtly and slowly transformed us into corporate fictions under their rules.  

Returning to liberty will not require returning to a Constitution that has been lost in history, but understanding and returning to the foundation that was established with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Only then, can we proceed forward in freedom and either re-institute the organic Constitution and Bill of Rights or institute a different form that will better secure our Natural Rights going forward. The decision has and always will be ours to make, not rulers.  

During the colonial period, us Americans had become accustomed to managing our own affairs and governing ourselves. Parliament and the Crown were distant and unable to deal with the day to day issues of the colonies. We had governors beholden to the Crown and tax collectors, but most of the real governance was done by us, through our own colonial governments. We naturally assumed a posture of independence long before the Declaration of Independence was ever proposed.  

The Plan  

The plan is quite simple and based on just two sentences in the Declaration of Independence:  

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” 

Just to be clear, a natural right is any activity that doesn't result in harm to another sentient being, except in defensive force when someone attacks your rights.  

A wrong is any action that harms another sentient being by initiating violence against them, judicially, legislatively, physically, or otherwise. 

Consistent with the necessary 1st law of nature, the right of self-defense, the first step of any community should be to form Natural Law militias, composed of members of the community capable of defending it by armed defensive force. This force is necessary for defending our Natural Rights from any threat posed against us.  

Membership in the militia must exclude all active government officials, since tyranny flows primarily from the abuse of government power. It is more likely than not that major offensive action will flow from that quarter and the militia must always be on guard against it. Whenever the rights of any one of us is trampled, the stage is set against all of us. Therefore, there should be no tolerance of 'necessary' or 'reasonable' infringements on the rights of anyone for any reason. 

The militia should elect officers from among their ranks, someone everyone respects for their ability to lead, not command, free people in times of trouble. The militia must provide their own arms and implements of war and be proficient in their use. Our community should provide logistical support for the militia during times of conflict, such as ammunition, medical supplies and services, as well as other needs of the militia that may arise in defense of our Natural Rights. 

Since the militia consists of members of our community and we’re defending our rights, it only makes sense to support it. Once the Militia has been formed and discipline established, those within it should exercise their Natural Right of self-defense as follows:  

Beginning at the most local level, determine who in government office is securing our Natural Rights or attacking them. Once that has been determined, the following must be done depending on the status of the officer.  

• Only offices that are necessary to assist us in securing our Natural Rights from harm are lawful, should exist, and be supported by us.  
• If an unlawful office exists, attacking our Natural Rights by plundering or otherwise oppressing us, abolish it with defensive force. 
• If an officer of a lawful office, is attacking our Natural Rights by their official actions, remove them by force of arms and replace them. 

This completes the new plan of action to restore America to its original foundation of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.  

©2016-2018 by Thomas Mick, All Rights Reserved. Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited.  

http://lessonsofthepast.com/2016/02/12/a-new-plan-of-action-for-restoring-the-american-republic/  

• Blog: http://lessonsofthepast.com/  
• Minds: https://www.minds.com/ThomasMick/  

• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=475645  
• PayPal: http://paypal.me/ThomasMick/  
• Blog: http://lessonsofthepast.com/  
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.mick/  
• GAB: @publius87  
• 
  

At this time, I primarily survive on the voluntary contributions of my audience; please consider supporting my efforts to restore the American Republic, by sending contributions via the Donate button at http://lessonsofthepast.com, becoming a patron through Patreon for a dollar or more a month, or send cash or a postal money order to:   

Thomas Mick
c/o General Delivery
Libby, Montana 59923 

Our Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms and its Implications to Society

by Thomas Mick

This article is not meant to provide statistical analysis or attempt to convince people to lobby Congress to remove restrictions on firearms; Congress was prohibited by the Bill of Rights, Article IV to infringe on that right and there is a volume of material already available to provide favorable statistical information. The focus here is to paint a picture of what a free society exercising their right to keep and bear arms will look like and the benefits to society of being armed, as well as the economic benefit to arms manufacturers in a free economy. I will be exploring a very brief observation of the historic reason for weapons, the utility of firearms over other inferior weapons, as well as their contribution to American life in history without passing ethical judgment on the men who wielded them; my focus in this article is on firearms and our inherent, God-given right of self-defense, which by necessity when you consider what we’re defending against, requires firearms.

This article will deal with what I consider to be the most important right we possess, which if we’re denied the ability to exercise it will make exercising the rest problematic to say the least; the natural right of self-defense, specifically our right to keep and bear arms.

Our Creator endowed us with intellect and reason; substantially setting us apart from the other beasts we share this world with. It is through that ability that we’ve learned to make fire and fashion weapons to hunt food and protect us from others that attack either our life or property. The natural right to keep and bear arms of any type is mankind’s resource to protect his other rights from other men, as well as the beasts of the earth, such as lions, bears, poisonous snakes, etc. Without our ability to successfully defend the most basic of rights, life, we would soon find ourselves extinct as a species or subjects of the most despicable of tyrants.

Our ancestors in America survived primarily through the use of firearms. Yes they used other implements of war, as well as snares, traps, and other means; but firearms, since their invention, has always been the premier weapon of choice to anyone who could obtain one, since a lead projectile fired at high velocity was more effective than any of the others for removing a threat or putting meat on the table. While primarily thought of as an implement of war, firearms were primarily used to put meat on the table and repel threats in defense of their rights, more than to impose their will on others; since most people possessed arms in early America it was much more difficult to attack them. Many, if not most people today, owe their existence to the use of firearms by one or more of their ancestors in the defense of life; had they been unsuccessful by using an inferior weapon they would have died and their line, which includes you would have never existed.

Today most governments Americans live under wish to remove our arms and are openly attacking our natural right of self-defense in contravention of their oath to support the Constitution, by seeking to regulate away our ability to exercise that right. This assault against our arms has been ongoing since shortly after the Civil War, when organizations, such as the KKK, and political parties such as the Democrat Party, sought to keep arms out of the hands of freed slaves; specifically blacks. The problem with denying one group of people the peaceable enjoyment of their natural rights is that the effort ends up denying all of us in the end. What is done out of fear and ignorance more often than not comes back to harm everyone but is always a benefit to government, especially when it regards our ability to repel their attacks against our rights as individuals.

This is what all government officers are sworn to support and defend with relationship to the right to keep and bear arms:

“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.” – Bill of Rights, Article IV

The rights of the people to arm, organize, and defend their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property, requires the availability of the arms necessary for that purpose. All governments, both state and Federal, have sworn an oath to abide by the terms of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a vital part. By that one sentence in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that government is prohibited from infringing in any manner on our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms of any type or configuration we require whatsoever; the first Congress slammed the door on any debate on the matter.

An armed society is a polite society

Now let us explore what a free armed society of people might look like. For some of you, that is not a problem since not all states have made gun ownership as difficult as the Federal Government would like. Criminals flee armed communities because their victims can and will fight back, resulting in a particularly unsafe work environment for their chosen professions. Clerks can shoot armed robbers, women can shoot rapists, everyone can shoot muggers, as well as anyone else that attacks us; peace officers, after it is established that a murder has not been committed, can merely call the coroner to clean up the mess, fill out some paperwork, and rest easy knowing that the people removed another pest from society by defending themselves. If there is any question regarding motive an inquest can be called to determine the facts.

Since Congress is prohibited from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, it exempts the arms industry from many Federal regulatory powers internal as well as external, since those regulations would infringe on the American people’s right. We should have access to any arms required for Militia use to repel any threat, including threats from arbitrary and criminal government. As government becomes more sophisticated in their arms the Militia must have the freedom to keep pace, in fact, Congress is required under Article I, Section 8, and clause 16:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Arms are an integral part of a free society; free men are armed, slaves are not. In an armed society, most people will never have to fire a weapon except to practice and remain proficient. Most ammunition would be expended into targets or wild game, not the body of another human being. Government wouldn’t dare attack the natural rights of the people since every council meeting or courtroom would be attended by armed spectators jealous of their rights. Members of Congress wouldn’t be passing or even supporting unconstitutional legislation against our natural rights if they had to face armed people at their next town hall meeting. In short, the freedom to exercise our rights, all of them, would be much more secure.

Today we live under a dictatorship in Washington, D.C. The Office of President has been usurped, with the aid and comfort of all three branches of the Federal Government and with the tacit approval of the states who continue to comply with the Federal government and impose its usurpation and taxation on the people of America. Barack Obama is attempting to use any device he can conceive to deny us the power to exercise our natural right to defend ourselves from the Islamic and international forces he is bringing into our communities in order to subjugate us and destroy the republic. I can see no question as to his intent or doubt of the complicity of so many today in government to his criminal and treasonous activity. There is one thing distressing Obama and his loyal subjects though; armed Americans who have refused to comply with his demands and have been building their inventories of arms and ammunition in preparation of the conflict to come. Our natural right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the only thing holding off a much greater tyranny than we already have.

When Americans once again exercise their right to not only own but bear arms throughout their day, government will be much less inclined to reach the state we see today… arm up America.

©2015 by Thomas Mick, All Rights Reserved.Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited.

http://lessonsofthepast.com/2015/03/07/our-natural-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-and-its-implications-to-society/

Blog: http://lessonsofthepast.com/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=475645Minds: https://minds.com/ThomasMick/MeWe: https://mewe.com/profile/56c4d8064b4d173442eb17dc/Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.mick/PayPal: https://paypal.me/ThomasMick/GAB: @publius87

At this time, I survive primarily on the free will contributions of my audience; please consider supporting my efforts to restore the freedom under Natural Law, by sending contributions via the Donate button at http://lessonsofthepast.com, becoming a patron through Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=475645, for a dollar or more a month, or send cash or a postal money order to:

Thomas Mick
c/o General Delivery
Libby, Montana 59923

JEANETTE FINICUM - THE JURY IS OUT in US v. ASTARITA - REGULARLY UPDATING ARTICLE

This article is of the coverage of the US v. ASTARITA Trial agaist the FBI Agent who fired upon LaVoy Finicum and company and lied. This article will be updated as coverage reports come in.

7/26 Thursday's Radio Show - Latest Report Below


We cover the case against Agent Astarita of the FBI with an update from Jeanette Finicum, followed by a response to an SPLC Anti-Government propaganda video followed by the news regarding an illegal alien being seated in a local California Government Commission.

LATEST REPORT:

THE JURY IS OUT

Jeanette Finicum 7/27/18 6:12PM pacific

7/27 Friday

Tribute to LaVoy: 
https://www.facebook.com/1442023897/posts/10217239810654285/ 

Update by Jeanette Finicum on USA v. ASTARITA - The Agent who lied about firing upon LaVoy unprovoked. 
https://www.facebook.com/cowboystand/videos/672532573082142/

Report from Kelli Stewart
https://www.facebook.com/100011813922844/videos/426487891088338/


We Are Not Anti-Government - LaVoy Finicum in His not the SPLC's own words
https://www.facebook.com/sarah.reddbuck.3/videos/151555875272006/

An RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Resurrect the Republic Production 

Support my work - https://paypal.me/RTRTruthMedia
Tom Lacovara-Stewart https://www.facebook.com/RTRTruthMedia1776
Media Page - https://www.facebook.com/ResurrectTheRepublic/

RTR Truth Media - Resurrect the Republic
http://ResurrectTheRepublic.com
Republic Broadcasting Network
http://RepublicBroadcasting.org

New Social Media Account - Freedom Platform 
https://oneway.com/rtrtruthmedia/

RTR Truth Media - Dtube
- https://d.tube/#!/c/rtrtruthmedia
RTR Truth Media - Steemit 
- https://steemit.com/@rtrtruthmedia
RTR Truth Media Reloaded YouTube 
- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAxy9vKN0Uh3N8kbQa5gG1A
RTR Truth Media Bitchute 
- https://www.bitchute.com/channel/rtrtruthmedia/


Please go to our show's facebook page like and follow:
Resurrect The Republic Radio Show RBN 
on Facebook - https://facebook.com/RTRTruthMedia/

Fair Use Act Disclaimer. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.


In the United States, freedom of the press is protected under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Under the First Amendment, the government is not allowed to censor the press. Nor can any corporation, platform nor communications medium that caters to people on the claim of impartiality censor any such content. Especially those who have built their platforms on mediums that have taken part in government (taxpayer paid) subsidies.

POLITICAL PRISONER TODD ENGEL on the CORRUPT COURTS - HIS CASE - FEDERAL OVERREACH

In an exclusive interview/call with Rudy and Erin Davis of RTR Truth Media Group, Todd Engel discusses his case, the corrupt courts and federal overreach that has caused so many good Americans to take a stand against the corruption in support of their Republic.

Todd Engel sentenced to 14 years in prison for daring to have love and compassion for who he saw to be Americans being persecuted. That is the essence of who we are supposed to be and what we are all supposed to represent.

TRLStewart

 

“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.” – Second Amendment

by Shari Dovale

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that all Americans have the right to carry firearms, as is also protected by the Second Amendment. 

See - https://rtrtruthmedia.blogspot.com/2018/07/right-to-keep-and-bear-in-public-upheld.html

The case stemmed from a Hawaii resident being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Hawaii gun control laws have held that the Constitution only protects that right at home.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

However, this is in direct contradiction to the prosecution’s arguments throughout the US v. Cliven Bundy et al case.

During the first Bunkerville trial, Judge Gloria Navarro said ......

anytime a person is open-carrying a weapon and a law enforcement officer happens to see that weapon, then that is evidence of a threat to the officer and is considered assault.

This is inconsistent to the unalienable right of the people, the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, and the State laws of Nevada, as well as numerous other states, which allow for the open carry of firearms.

Additionally, just last week, on July 18^th, AUSA Daniel Scheiss argued during the sentencing hearing for Micah McGuire that just the act of having a holstered weapon in public constitutes an act of violence.

Read More -  https://redoubtnews.com/2018/07/ninth-contradicts-bunkerville/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Right to Keep and Bear in Public Upheld - Liberal Fed Court of Appeals Landmark Decision

Young v. Hawaii, a Ninth Circuit panel holds by a 2-to-1 vote (Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Sandra Ikuta, with Judge Robert Clifton dissenting) that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns openly in public places. Though the Ninth Circuit had earlier resolved in Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc) that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry -- as D.C. v. Heller had earlier suggested, in reliance on 19th-century cases that had generally rejected a right to concealed carry -- the panel concludes (also citing Heller and 19th-century sources) that there is a right to open carry, so as to be able to defend oneself in public places as well.

The Supreme Court has stated that carrying can be banned in some "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," so any right to carry would not be unlimited; but it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both and thus makes guns available to most citizens for self-defense in public places.

It is of course quite possible that the case will be reheard en banc, which is what happened with Peruta (where the panel decision came out in favor of protecting a right to carry). But if the case isn't reheard en banc, or the panel decision is affirmed on en banc rehearing, then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject.

Excerpt from Reason

RTR TRUTH MEDIA -

As we see in the video above, the main stream media has little to no Constitutional understanding. They report on the recent case that upholds the restriction upon the government not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but misreports the essence of the 2nd Amendment. The court can not determine that the 2nd Amendment gives us anything but the restriction upon government as to where they may not tread on a free people. There is no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment only secures this right the Founders said was inherent, which means these rights existed prior to the Constitution's ratification. To say otherwise is disinformation. That being said this decision appears to "respect" the 2nd Amendment.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision - Upholding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Public - Young v. Hawa... by Tom Lacovara-Stewart RTR TruthMedia on Scribd

FOX NEWS -

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.

“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.

The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges -- who were both appointed by Republican presidents -- ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.

9TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN

"We are disappointed in the decision that would undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public,” Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki said in a statement. “But we note that Judge Clifton filed a well-reasoned dissent supporting the constitutionality of this law. We intend to consult with Hawai‘i County and work with them on further action."

It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.

This is how Fox News publishes the 2nd Amendment incorrectly: The Second Amendment states: “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.”

James Madison, was not such a person as to abuse grammar rules and, like his predecessors in Jefferson and Franklin, he was rather specific and exercised practiced intent in how he phrased his statements — especially for documents of such import.

The actual text that was was read and approved and signed into law by the House of Representatives and the Senate, only included a single comma:

This is the correct version of the 2nd Amendment: 

“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.”

The commas mean something.... and accuracy is essential. So why does Fox News and nearly all other main stream media corporations get it consistently wrong? You be the judge. 

- RTR Truth Media 

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.

Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”

Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.

Fox News' Bill Mears, Adam Shaw, Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

Disclaimer: We share articles on a piece by piece basis and stand behind the reports of what we share. This in no way means that we support all content by writers or pundits for any main stream source but that of which we share. 

According to Leftist Professors Calls for Civility by Conservatives is RACIST

The Left is doing everything it can to stifle legitimate political debate so that there will be no other way to solve differences and disagreements over issues except through violence.

The latest example of this comes from a New York University professor who has claimed that “calls for civility” in our political discourse “are just a power play by those who feel that white supremacy is under threat.”

A pretty uninformed statement when you consider that whites are still, by far, the dominant ethnic group in America.

Nevertheless, as reported by Campus Reform, Simran Jeet Singh, a Henry R. Luce Post-Doctoral Fellow for Religion in International Affairs at the university’s Center for Religion and Media, made his ridiculous statement in a series of recent tweets in what was likely a response to calls for civility following crank Rep. Maxine Waters’ pleas with supporters to physically confront Trump administration officials because “they’re not welcome anywhere anymore.”

And for the record, Singh — an Asian-American with ties to India — is currently doing a post-doctoral fellowship under the name of a white American magazine magnate; Luce is the creator of the Time-Life magazine empire. Apparently, his hypocrisy is boundless.

Campus Reform noted further that Singh self-describes as an “anti-racist activist.” In the first tweet thread, he claimed that “lecturing people of color about civility in this climate is an ultimate sign of privilege.”

Really?

There’s more.

Whites are tired of being told they’re all racists

“If you don’t know what it’s like to fight for your life every single day, then it might not be your place to tell us how to fight personal and systemic racism,” he said, adding that “they mobilize and run these dehumanizing racist systems — and then they ask us to be more civil?” 

Singh went on to say that Europeans often described those they “colonized” as being “uncivil” and backward. Therefore, the concept of “civility” must be rooted in “whiteness” and “European colonialism.”

It should be noted as well that America didn’t “colonize” his family’s native country of India; that would be Great Britain. But what do facts and details matter when you’re doing “activism?”

And what about that claim of having to “fight every single day” for his life? Is that accurate? Does Dr. Singh really have to do that in far-Left New York, where ethnic minorities flourish as does tolerant, accepting progressivism? That seems a bit hyperbolic. (Related: MSNBC sticking with homophobic racialist Joy Reid.)

Why Singh has to attach a racial connotation to simple calls for people to tone down their divisive, inflammatory rhetoric in what can only be described as an extreme, hyper-partisan political environment, is a mystery. If Maxine Waters had been white and we called for civility, would that be white privilege compounded or just plain common sense?

We’re confused because one day we’re being told that white people are too violent and responsible for all the mass murders, then the next day we see whites being tut-tutted for trying to tamp down violence. 

Maybe white people are getting so uptight with Left-wing minorities because they’re sick and tired of Left-wing minorities accusing them of being racists…for everything they do and say.

“Activists” like Singh aren’t “anti-racist” campaigners they are racialist hacks with a chip on their shoulder who see an opportunity to lash out at whites for injustices, real and perceived. In other words, they’re dishing out the very same treatment to whites they claim to hate, to be against, and to have been victimized by. They’re giant hypocrites, but they hide behind their skin color and pretend that there’s no way they could ever be racists in a white-dominated country.

But they are. And it’s gotten way old.

Read more news about ridiculous “speech police” at SpeechPolice.news.

J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

NaturalNews.com

CampusReform.org

TheNationalSentinel.com

ANGELA MERKEL’s COMMUNIST ROOTS EXPOSED - It’s a Global Infection

How Close Was Merkel to the Communist System?

In a resurrected article in Der Spiegel from 2013 we see exactly who Merkel is.

A biography focusing on Chancellor Angela Merkel's time growing up in East Germany is making headlines because it suggests she was closer to the communist system than hitherto known. Her spokesman has denied she has covered anything up.

New Biography Causes Stir

Tuesday, 5/14/2013   04:04 PM 

A new biography covering Chancellor life in East Germany has caused a stir by suggesting she was closer to the communist apparatus and its ideology than previously thought. 

Published this week and written by journalists Günther Lachmann and Ralf Georg Reuth, the book quotes Gunter Walther, a former colleague of hers at the Academy of Sciences in East Berlin, as saying she had been secretary for "Agitation and Propaganda" in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (FDJ) youth organization at the institute. Merkel, a trained physicist, worked at the academy from 1978 until 1989.

Excerpts from the book, "The First Life of Angela M.," were published in the newsmagazine Focus on Monday. The mass-circulation Bild newspaper has also given the book prominent coverage in recent days. 

The book explores Merkel's life growing up in German Democratic Republic (GDR), where her father Horst Kasner was a Protestant pastor and a committed socialist. He moved to East Germany from West Germany in 1954. 

Merkel has said in the past that her FDJ role at the academy was more that of a cultural secretary and that her duties included buying theater tickets and organizing book readings.

'Closeness to the System'

But former German Transport Minister Günther Krause -- an eastern German politician who worked with her in the final months of the GDR and as a fellow minister in the government ex-chancellor Helmut Kohl in the early 1990s -- contradicts her in the book and says she propagated Marxism-Leninism. 

"With Agitation and Propaganda you're responsible for brainwashing in the sense of Marxism," he said. "That was her task and that wasn't cultural work. Agitation and Propaganda, that was the group that was meant to fill people's brains with everything you were supposed to believe in the GDR, with all the ideological tricks. And what annoys me about this woman is simply the fact that she doesn't admit to a closeness to the system in the GDR. From a scientific standpoint she wasn't indispensable at the Academy of Sciences. But she was useful as a pastor's daughter in terms of Marxism-Leninism. And she's denying that. But it's the truth." 

On Sunday evening, Merkel said she hadn't covered up anything about her past. "I can only rely on my memory," she said at a public screening of her favorite movie, a popular love film made in East Germany, on Sunday night. "If something turns out to be different, I can live with that."

Her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, denied on Monday that the chancellor had ever covered up political aspects of her life in East Germany. "The chancellor has been making statements about her life in the GDR for years in books and interviews," he said. "She always answered questions openly and based on her honest memories."

The book adds that Merkel and her father refused all attempts by the Ministry for State Security or Stasi, the feared secret police, to recruit them as informants.

A Latecomer to the East German Reform Movement

Merkel, who speaks good Russian, was well informed about Perestroika and the distancing of the Soviet government from the East German regime, the book says. She read Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's speeches in the Communist Party newspaper Pravda, and made contacts with East German reform groups only a few months before the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. 

The book says she and her father and brother Marcus discussed political developments with other people on September 1989. For them, the biography says, German unification was still inconceivable at that point "not just because it wouldn't have fitted into the bipolar world but because they strictly rejected the Western system of society."

It quotes Merkel as having said at the time: "If we reform the GDR, it won't be in terms of the Federal Republic."

Merkel's political ascent after that is well documented. She joined the opposition political movement Demokratischer Aufbruch (Democratic Awakening) in December 1989, became deputy spokeswoman of the democratically elected transitional East German government after the May 1990 election and joined the staunchly conservative Christian Democratic Union party in 1990s -- a surprising move given her apparent previous political leanings.

'Not Many Know What She's Really Thinking'

The chancellor at the time, Helmut Kohl spotted her potential and made her family affairs minister in his cabinet after the November 1990 German election. The rest is history.

"Only Angela Merkel herself can answer how much of her old life is still in her," Focus magazine wrote.

Her past may have contributed to making her inscrutable. Focus quotes Werner Schulz, a member of the European Parliament for the Greens who grew up in East Germany, as saying: "Her secrecy is a legacy of the GDR, I think. At the time you had to be careful about blurting out your opinions without thinking first. (…) Even today not many people know what she's really thinking." 

In power since 2005, Merkel is running for a third term in a September general election. She is widely expected to win. Her inscrutability and political shrewdness are legendary. She has sidelined every potential rival in the male-dominated, largely Catholic CDU. There's no obvious successor to her in her party and she's far more popular than her challenger from the center-left Social Democratic Party, Peer Steinbrück.

Critic: Book Spreads Spurious Conspiracy Theory

According to SPIEGEL journalist Stefan Berg, the book hasn't really shed any new light on the first 35 years of Merkel's life. Instead, he writes, it has thrown a fresh veil over it -- a veil of supposed conspiracy. "A disproportionate amount of mistrust runs through this book," writes Berg, who was born in East Berlin in 1964. "While Merkel's own declarations are eagerly called into question, intelligence reports are taken at face value and Socialist phrases are taken more seriously than they were in GDR times."

The book makes the "perfidious" suggestion that secret powers aided Merkel's path into politics, that she is some kind of Soviet plant, writes Berg. 

"Those who lived in the GDR can recall that everything was in disarray in the autumn of 1989, when careeers ended and new ones opened up -- a lot of it by chance, unintended, surprising. But coincidence is the enemy of journalists who -- firstly -- weren't there and -- secondly -- often see spies or other concealed forces at work. When they find no clues or can't interpret the clues they find, they see that as further evidence of their theory."

The book, writes Berg, paints a scenario in which "only naïve people can believe that Merkel wasn't steered by unknown forces." In fact, it doesn't present significant new facts, he adds. 

cro