silence is illegal

JUNGKOOK VEINS APPRECIATION

Let’s start off easy * rolls up sleeves*

Originally posted by beuits

HIS FOREARMS ARE ALREADY TENSE #BE READY FOR THIS

The picture might be blurry but the first thing that caught your attentiont is probably that veiny forearm

When he flexes while cooking asfdghjk 

His veins are just effortlessly showing as if it was normal shit to look that sexy

His manly forearms *nosebleed*

That manliness showcased through them , like : “ Baby girl * grabs your waist*” # you all thought of this # don’t deny me ppl


Keep reading

3

Neither stormtrooper reacted in time as Cassian reached down and touched the cool metal of his pistol’s grip. He barely moved his wrist and squeezed the trigger twice, averting his gaze just enough to avoid the glare of the energy discharge. The electric noise was low and sickly, muffled by an illegal silencing device that was almost effective. A moment later the stormtroopers lay dead in the alleyway. It was a miracle, Cassian thought, that the silenced blaster bolts had penetrated their armor. In a fairer world, he would be the one lying in filth with a burning hole instead of a heart.

Moments and Memories- Chapter Six

I actually wanted to wait a while before I did this, but considering the timeline and the fact that I still don’t actually have a plan for this… Eh, why not. Also… I’m so sorry, guys.

Warning: Angst

A/N: I’m so sorry…

I smile as Chris kisses me again, leaning into his touch as he tenderly explores my mouth. I love when he holds me like this- our bodies pressed against each other, his arm around my shoulders and down my back to cradle me, and our legs tangled together comfortably. I curl my leg around his, smiling more when he does, and he peppers my neck with kisses, making me giggle and squirm.

“Where are you going, princess?” He growls, keeping me pinned as I giggle, beard tickling me even more.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Tell me, do you have any actual proof that "The FBI actively sabotaged and dismantled the American Indian Movement, the Chicano Movement, and the Black Power movement"? Because that just sounds like a bullshit conspiracy theory to me.

(TW murder) 

The FBI has a program called COINTELPRO short for counter intelligence program. It was started to sabotage communist parties in the U.S. but in the sixties the expanded it to spying on and sabotaging certain political groups often using illegal avenues. 

They murdered a prominent leader of the Black Panther Party Fred Hampton in his home via the Chicago police. They fired over 100 shots into his apartment and room where he was sleeping with his pregnant girlfriend who survived by the grace of god.  

Body of Fred Hampton, national spokesman for the Black Panther Party, who was killed by members of the Chicago Police Department, as part of a COINTELPRO operation” 

He was 21


In 1890 American Indians had form a group to protest against white colonizers who had stripped them of their land and unjustly killed millions of their people. The infamous Battle of Wounded Knee took place on December 29th, 1890. U.S. soldiers heard a tribe of Indians taking part in the Ghost Dance and that they surrender all of their weapons. After they refused they killed 150 Indians more than half were women and children. 

Some 200 AIM members and their supporters decided to occupy the symbolically significant hamlet of Wounded Knee, site of the 1890 massacre. During the 71 days of the siege, which began on February 27, 1973, federal officers and AIM members exchanged gunfire almost nightly. Hundreds of arrests were made, and two Native Americans were killed and a federal marshal was permanently paralyzed by a bullet wound. The leaders of AIM finally surrendered on May 8 after a negotiated settlement was reached. In a subsequent trial, the judge ordered their acquittal because of evidence that the FBI had manipulated key witnesses.

The FBI also went after the Chicano Movement, which became known as the Brown Berets and the Puerto Rican Liberation Movement. Carlos Montes was one of the original Brown Berets. Montes told RT “The FBI worked with the LAPD and the sheriffs to keep the Brown Berets and local Chicano movements under surveillance. We were victims of agent provocateurs, police infiltration. They tried to incite our members to commit violence, so they would get arrested, and they did and we found out after we got arrested.”

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used four main methods during COINTELPRO:

  1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.
  2. Psychological warfare: The FBI and police used myriad “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.[55]
  3. Legal harassment: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, “investigative” interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.[5][56]
  4. Illegal force: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[5][6][7][57] The object was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.

They also: 

- Bugged Martin Luther King Jr’s home and hotel rooms on numerous occasions

- They also sent him a letter telling him to kill himself and that they would release proof that he was having extramarital affairs to the world and his wife, which they acquired by illegally taping his conversations. 

- Unjust arrest and imprisonment of Leonard Peltier who is a citizen of the Anishinabe & Dakota/Lakota Nations who has been unjustly imprisoned for nearly three decades.

No bullshit here babe just facts 

Leia & Chewie // Stydia FBI!AU//

Leia & Chewie (FBI!AU)
Pairing(s): Stiles x Lydia, Y/N x Scott (Mentioned), Lydia x Y/N (Mentioned)
Requested?: Yes
Request: Hi, could I please possibly have a teen wolf I magine where Stiles Stilinski and Lydia Martin are crime solving partners (not romantically involved). For the gif or image at the top could I possibly have the one where both of them are standing looking at the crime scene board (sorry I don’t know the episode). Thank you 💕 - @a-court-of-stydia
Warnings: Knives, plOt tWIsT, the dead are alive again
Word Count: 2,272
A/N: Request via @bonniebird. This took way longer than it should have but… Episode is 4x09 ‘Perishable’ by the way :) - image from Google. I added the reader for a little bit because I normally do reader inserts. and they get more attention.

>Perp - Perpetrator

[MASTERLIST] [SEND FEEDBACK] Main Blog: @heyitssilverwolf

Keep reading

freeze peach

The main thing you have to understand, if we’re going to have a productive discussion, is that free speech is about more than legalities to me.

It’s part of my personal value system. It’s something I care about in all aspects of my life, and I try to conduct myself accordingly. And I fundamentally disagree with people who reduce it to law alone. That perspective is quite troubling to me, in fact: it ignores the reality that social forces can hold just as much oppressive sway as legal ones. I wouldn’t dare assert, for instance, that racism is over just because black people have the same legal status as whites. Nor did marriage equality magically end homophobia. I’m suspicious of the argument that oppression by government is more “legitimate” than oppression by public opprobrium. To go full Godwin: Neo-Nazis have little to no political power worldwide, yet the threat they pose to the objects of their invective is still very real.

The left seems to grok this concept - see above re: racism and homophobia. But there’s a certain reluctance to apply it to free speech that I find frankly baffling. Is it so unthinkable that social prejudice, of one stripe or another, might inform the parameters of what’s allowed to be said? Of what people feel comfortable saying? Common sense would hold that it’s not - there are certain positions we’ve all but driven from the Overton window. Some, I think, for good - but I don’t buy that consensus by popular opinion is prima facie good.

It’s here, I think, that people confuse legality and morality. If a majority Protestant neighborhood reacts with disdain to any hint of Catholicism, such that a visiting Catholic speaker is drowned out with a chorus of boos - well, that’s certainly their right. They haven’t infringed upon said Catholic’s free expression in any legal sense, but I’d argue that by disrupting his speech, they’ve limited others’ right to freedom of association. They’ve curbed my right to hear what he has to say. They haven’t done anything illegal, and I certainly wouldn’t call for their arrest, but a legal act isn’t automatically morally defensible.

A few months ago, Donald Trump held a rally in my city. I’m no fan of Trump, to be perfectly clear. But I was frustrated and disappointed by the reaction of my community, a significant portion of which circulated a petition to have his speech shut down. To be once again perfectly clear, I do not think they did anything illegal, and I recognize that petitions are a valid form of free speech. That said, if a few thousand signatories can be enough to remove an event from a public space, we should all we scared. Access to information should not be controlled by those who scream the loudest. Suppose the next controversial speaker is a representative for Planned Parenthood. Suppose the local evangelical population makes enough noise to get it canceled. Such silencing isn’t illegal, but it’s silencing nonetheless.

Finally, as tumblr user @academicianzex puts it:

A community where you’re perfectly at liberty to become a Muslim, but at the same time your mosques get shut down and you will be fired from your job and unable to find a new one is not one of religious freedom, no matter what the first amendment says.  And a community where political events can be shut down at the whim of the majority and where you can be fired for supporting the wrong candidate does not meaningfully have freedom of speech, no matter what the laws say. Freedom has to be inscribed on the hearts of the people as well as on the paper of the laws for it to be effective in the real world.