Image

Thank You for Visiting Fed Up in RI

FED UP NAME - FINAL 23684_n

http://fedupinri.wix.com/fedupinri

website Announcement 0218_n

Cerebral Revolution 599355_n

https://www.facebook.com/RI4Healey

“Taking up arms mentally against the injustices within our society”

 

Advertisements

WONDER WHY THEY DON’T “TALK” ABOUT THIS…

How Many More Breaths Does Local Talk Radio Have Left?

‘Cumulus Media, who owns WPRO AM, WPRO FM, is in financial collapse due to big debt and an unsustainable business model…’ “claims filed against the company have begun to stack up. A total of 22 have been filed in bankruptcy court so far, including hundreds of thousands of dollars owed in taxes.”  (Read more @ link below)

So, what makes Republican candidate for governor Giovanni Feroce’s Benrus battle any different from WPRO’s financial woes?

Contrary to what these talking-heads would have the public believe…

Feroce’s former lawyer, Michael F. Sweeney, a ‘Mergers & Acquisitions’ attorney — may have engaged in a ‘hostile takeover’ involving Benrus assets that are in litigation — which happens everyday in the world of big business, and has nothing to do with his ability to lead an organization, or the State of Rhode Island.`

On the other hand, WPRO’s financial melt-down IS directly tied to its management and poor ratings – which IS a personal reflection on their capabilities.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Sources:

http://www.golocalprov.com/business/by-monday-most-of-ris-top-radio-stations-in-ri-may-be-in-bankruptcy

http://www.insideradio.com/the-inside-story-on-how-cumulus-ended-up-in-bankruptcy/article_2bda44a2-e0ad-11e7-b750-b3f91046de3c.html

https://www.ajc.com/business/update-radio-cumulus-flew-and-fell-now-warning-bankruptcy-possible/4d1bBSd8IVB7xxsy63rFAL/

 

Rhode Island Independence Day

In the spirit of Rhode Island Independence Day — to understand how far we’ve strayed, please take a moment to read the following words from our Founders who were clear about our Constitution’s Rule of Law and its prescribed protections for our Independence…

George Washington: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all. … Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the supineness or venality of their constituents, over-leap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to show, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.”

John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People. … [T]hey may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. … A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. … The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are Constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. … On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. … In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Alexander Hamilton: “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. … The Judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. … If it be asked, ‘What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic?’ The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. … A sacred respect for the Constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. … [T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes — rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.”

James Madison: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. … If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Are We Living in a Post-Constitutional Era Without a Single Shot Being Fired?

Today, our nation is in disarray. Our Constitution has been trampled, and the decline of the moral fabric of our society is in question. Our governments have lost the trust of the people. Our courts do not uphold the Constitution, and the American people afraid for the future of their children are being told to relinquish even more of their individual liberties in the name of security – by a federal government and state bureaucracies operating outside their constitutional boundaries that continue to encroach upon the God given rights of ‘We The People’ enshrined in and protected by our Constitutions.
Therefore, the time has come to ask the question…
“Is the Second Amendment under attack because America is in a post-constitutional “age of betrayal”— meeting the definition of tyranny as understood by the Founders?”
Here are some words on the matter from the late Bob Healey, founder of The Cool Moose Party…

The Right to Overthrow
by Robert Healey
Aug 19, 2015
Opinion – Motif Magazine

I may be on the wrong end of a gun debate, but I am still bringing a knife to this gunfight. My position is that the Second Amendment does not relate to guns, but has a far more visionary intent: revolution. To me, the argument that the Second Amendment is about guns completely misses the target. The Second Amendment is about the right to pick up a pitchfork, sword or gun to either protect or restore our rights against any tyrannical government (and oddly enough, tyrannical governments do not interpret this similarly).

The colonists, having survived a bout of tyranny, were in no mood to be restricted. Guns were as commonplace as spoons and necessary for daily existence. They were a daily tool and not explicitly mentioned in the Second Amendment. Has anyone proposed any good hammer amendments recently? At the founding, tyranny was real threat. Retaining a right to keep arms to rise up against government is far more logical as the foundation for the Second Amendment.

While we can debate whether we need to preserve (or expand) our Second Amendment right of revolution, the idea that has been postulated for most of the 20th century that the Second Amendment is to protect or regulate guns is misguided. Whatever side you are on, gun control or gun ownership, you are wrong to think the Second Amendment is your problem or your savior. The real issue is the change in society and how this relates to the Second Amendment.

The deinstitutionalization of America in the late 1960s put thousands on the street based on the theory that one is insane only if the person is ‘dangerous to self or others’ (usually proven after a mass shooting). While deinstitutionalization was a victory for personal freedom (and humanity), the downside is that the state, freed of its commitment to its mentally deficient, failed to provide support on the outside for those released from the inside.

Mass shootings, often the work of the certifiably insane, trigger a debate about gun control under the Second Amendment when it really should initiate a discussion of how our society fails its mentally deficient. Having potentially insane people among us can be dangerous (as it was back then). Guns are an easy means for the insane to vent their frustrations, but is the solution to take away the guns or to better care for our mentally unstable? Is your answer for us to submit to more tyranny because we are allowing more freedoms? Do we still fight wars for peace?

I do not own a gun (as I may be dangerous to myself and others). I have used a gun. I can state unequivocally, I don’t see myself as shooting people (even those assholes who bring 15 items to the 10 items or less cashier. Although, as an aside, does corn count as one item or 12?). All that said, I would shoot a tyrant, with malice aforethought. I guess that means government needs to keep me happy enough not to see it as tyrannical. Either that, or take my Second Amendment rights away, or shoot me, or both.

The Second Amendment is my inalienable right to overthrow my government, and that, they will have to pry from my cold dead hands.”

Robert J. Healey, Jr.

ARE ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ FUNDING OUR OWN DEMISE?

America’s gun culture has been the subject of intense interest and controversy for years, with concerns frequently raised about shadowy militias, paramilitary extremists, and unstable mass shooters in possession of explosives and firearms.

However, amid the current gun-control debate and protests calling for more legislation to further prohibit private gun ownership, one domestic organization’s fearsome arsenal of military-style equipment has been left out of the conversation.

In just the past decade, the group amassed a stockpile of pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, along with ample supplies of ammunition, liquid explosives, gun scopes, and suppressors. In its cache as well are night-vision goggles, gas cannons, plus armored vests, drones, and surveillance equipment. Yet this organization’s aggressive weapons buildup to arm itself has drawn almost NO public attention.

Does all this firepower belong to a terror cell? A right-wing hate group? A vicious urban gang or mass shooter?

None of the above.

Continue reading

VOTER FRAUD OR VOTER PROFILING?

Was the Commission that was founded to investigate

voter fraud… a fraud itself?

Steve Bannon helped launch Cambridge Analytica with the financial backing of the wealthy Mercer family and oversaw Cambridge Analytica’s early efforts to collect troves of Facebook data as part of an ambitious program to build detailed profiles of millions of American voters.

Ken Block, founder of Simpatico Software, and two-time Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate, did a computer analysis of the potential for voter fraud funded by the Government Accountability Institute, which was co-founded by Steve Bannon and the GOP’s mega donor – the wealthy Mercer family.

Cambridge Analytica specializes in what’s called “psychographic” profiling, meaning they use data collected online to create personality profiles for voters. They then take that information and target individuals with specifically tailored content.

If you use the internet or social media, you leave behind a digital trail of crumbs. Every post you like, every tweet you retweet, every thread you participate in — it’s all data up for collection and input.

Cambridge Analytica, a company created by Robert Mercer, a billionaire patron of right-wing outlets like Breitbart News, has been swallowing up all the data they can get.

Continue reading

What America’s anti-gun fanatics won’t tell you… We Will

  Here’s the reason why no anti-gun extremist will ever direct you to the Militia Act itself — because it proves WE THE “UNORGANIZED” MILITIA have the right to bear arms too!

READ IT FOR YOURSELF…..

The Militia Act of 1795 was on the books until 1903, when the Dick Act replaced it which established the United States National Guard with the language found below in 10 U.S. Code sec. 311:

“Militia”: composition and classes —

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are–

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So you see, according to the Militia Act @ (2) — ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ are also the militia and have the right to bear arms too… we’re just “unorganized”! Have fun with that.

Continue reading

Exposing ‘Tolling’ in RI – To Enrich the 1% of the 1%

For decades our state politicos of both parties have abjectly failed to meet their responsibility to maintain our essential transportation infrastructure. They’ve had the political backbone of slugs, unwilling to speak the obvious truths of an unaccountable transportation system while our roads and bridges have been allowed to deteriorate, on purpose, in bringing us to this crisis.

However, if the goal is privatization, this is the moment they have awaited, when they could impose their ideology on the unsuspecting public – and here it is.

All the Governor now needs to do is get the initial ‘groundwork plan’ enacted by getting the gantries erected, then under the total control of the unaccountable and unanswerable DOT, they in turn will proceed to work lock-in-step toward the real propose – which is… the privatization of our public infrastructure.

The Global Corporations, Wall Street and banking cartels are on a (P3) mission of rewriting OUR Rights to establish a new form of “Hybrid-Governance” referred to by the McKinsey Company aka (THE FIRM) that Gina Raimondo’s husband ‘Andy Moffit’ happens to work for. McKinsey and Company – who are the major consultants for P3 Projects calls privatization the new “Hybrid-Governance” & they refer to the public as its “Human Capital” and “End-Users”.

Now, I don’t know about you, but last I checked, ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ lived in a REPUBLIC that derives its just powers THROUGH the “Consent of the governed” – not THROUGH ‘WE THE HUMAN-CAPITAL’ under “HYBRID-GOVERNANCE” ruled by UNELECTED MEGA CORPORATIONS!

Continue reading

Welcome To Rhode Island — ‘Sanctuary State’ of the Union

 What the Governor, Mayor, and media don’t tell you… although Providence may not be listed as a ‘Sanctuary City’ — it’s because we hold the distinction of being 1 out of only 4 ‘Sanctuary States’ in the Union!

Both parties have sold us out in allowing Illegal immigration to flourish, because Democrats wanted more voters, and Republicans sought inexpensive labor for their donors — and now they are scrambling to hide their past and present agendas… by idealizing the so-called ‘Dreamers’.

Sources:

http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/sanctuary-cities

Immigrant Legal Resource Center

Map: The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national non-profit resource center that provides legal trainings, educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights.