Well-Armed Activists Openly Defy Texas Law to Feed The Homeless

| |

feedthehomeless

When feeding the homeless becomes an act of civil disobedience, Americans have been asleep for far too long.

Luckily, however, there are still good people who are willing to defy such arbitrary and ill-conceived laws and ordinances.

The folks over at the aptly named organization Don’t Comply, took to the streets just outside the Austin Street Shelter in Dallas this weekend to perform, what has now become a revolutionary act – feeding the homeless.

“We are not complying with a bad law today,” Matthew Short, PR director of Don’t Comply said. “Evidently the city of Dallas believes that it’s wrong, or bad, or unlawful for us to feed more than a certain number of people at a time. But, during Christmas, we want to show love to our community and give these people a chance to survive the winter, whether it be with blankets or coats, or just giving them a holiday party like today with all kinds of cookies, and goodies, turkey and dressing, and the whole nine yards.”

Last December, the Dallas city council enacted Ordinance No. 29595, which makes it illegal to serve food to the homeless without jumping through a statist myriad of bureaucratic hoops, including a fee, training classes, and written notices.

One should not need to file multiple forms and pay a fee to obtain a permit to give food to those in need who are willingly ready to accept it. The folks at Don’t Comply know this.

According to Brett Sanders, hundreds of homeless people showed up to not only enjoy a fantastic array of food, snacks and beverages – but there was also an assortment of winter clothing that was donated as well.

“All of the homeless people that I talked to during the event were extremely grateful for the support and there was a sense of humanity that is indescribable.  Interacting with other human beings whom most consider to be living life at rock bottom will likely alter your perspective on the world around you,” explained Sanders.

The event went off without a hitch, even after code enforcers showed up. Lead organizer of the event, Murdoch Pizgatti was confronted by the enforcers who told him to file the proper paperwork upon the event’s conclusion to which, Pizgatti politely replied, “no.”

“We’ve already had to speak to the police, they’ve already come and delivered code to us,” said Short, explaining what happened when the code enforcers showed up. “But, after shaking hands with them, they realized we’re all armed – and we’re gonna do what we’re gonna do because it’s not an immoral thing that we are doing.”

Below is the powerful video shot by Brett Sanders showing the powerful effects of such moral civil disobedience.

H/T Brett Sanders

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Project.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • LiberalsRLost

    God Bless you all and may this news travel far and wide….
    “Will Not Comply” may be the next calling with Remember the Alamo!

    • The_Countess

      will not comply with the code for health and safety? i’m not sure how popular that is going to be as a battle cry really.

      because the ordinance doesn’t say much more then that. obey health and safety laws so you don’t give them all food poisoning and send us a e-mail about what you are planning to do.

      clearly guns are needed to fight this hugely oppressive example of government overreach!

  • Frank

    Looks like a neighborhood potluck and clothing exchange, if you ask me. Who cares who shows up to get a plate of food. No money is exchanged, so nothing to tax. The City of Dallas is trying to monopolize Acts of Kindness, and charge fees for it, it seems.

    • Dave from San Antonio

      Ever notice that when a gov’t., whether federal, State or local can’t make money off something by taxing it…they create a bunch of “rules” and “fees”…especially if what is being done…is good, moral and ‘just’ and helps people. Oh…and read “Fees” as just a ‘tax’ that they cannot legally levy.

      • The_Countess

        actually it’s just about enforcing health and safety standards at a public place where food is served.

        you know, so there isn’t a sudden run on the emergency room in the hospital by homeless people puking their guts out.

        • Dave from San Antonio

          Right. It’s “all” for our health and safety. Most communist/authoritarian gov’t’s promote that idea…so the sheep will follow without complaints…thinking the gov’t will protect them and that they are all safe.

          • The_Countess

            yes because health inspected homeless feeding CLEARLY the way to absolute power.

            yup, no doubt about it. clear as day….

          • Flamejob5

            Yes CLEARLY only bureaucratic agents of the State are the only ones capable of ensuring the health & safety of individuals. No insignificant, measly private peon is capable & trustworthy of preparing safe & healthy food. It’s critical that we fund a 3rd party individual with a funny hat & special culinary powers and receive their food blessing & permission first.

          • The_Countess

            ya.. .completely not the reason for health and safety.

            the ‘peon’ (your words) has possible motives for not adhering to health and safety rules. to cut costs for example, or just laziness, or ‘that’s how it was always done in my country/family’ ect.

            but when you walk into say a restaurant you have a expectation to be served safe to eat food. i don’t know about you but i don’t subject the whole restaurant to a through inspection before i buy a meal there.

            “funny hat & special culinary powers”

            lets not forget knowledge of infection vectors, a solid understanding of germ theory and the ability to actually shut a place down when it breaks the rules.

            so why is the state involved?

            because its a independent 3de party.

        • concerndcitizen

          I didn’t see any reports of anyone who got sick. Since when does the Health Department have a monopoly on health? Look at the people who get sickened every year by regulated and inspected restaurants. Chipotle comes to mind.

          • The_Countess

            so because nobody got sick at this one food drive, that must mean all food drivers are safe?

            “when does the Health Department have a monopoly on health?”

            that’s their job. they don’t have a monopoly, they have a obligation. a obligation to keep as many people safe as they can by enforcing the existing rules.

            ” Look at the people who get sickened every year by regulated and inspected restaurants. ”

            it’s actually very low, and could have been much higher, because health and safety respond quickly when there is a outbreak.

            “Chipotle comes to mind.”

            there are no rules about what you eat. just that everything in it should be fit for human consumption and that its prepared hygienically.

          • concerndcitizen

            So when I invite other people over to my home, I should have the health inspector stop by? Maybe we should make that a rule too, since you think it works so well.

            A lot of people get sick at inspected establishments. I’d say the results have more to do with the person serving the food and the care they put into it than anything imposed from the outside, like a “health inspector”. I’m not even going to mention the bribes and other funny stuff that goes on in major cities.

            Also, how much are you paid to post? You spent quite a bit of time posting here….just saying!

          • The_Countess

            is your home a public place?

            “Also, how much are you paid to post? You spent quite a bit of time posting here….just saying!”

            i enjoy exchanging idea’s.

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

          If they are so concerned about enforcing health and safety standards, perhap they should send some microbiologists down to the feeding site to inspect the food instead of trying to stop people from feeding hungry people. My experience with a health department when I had contracted food poisoning in a restaurant was to ask for a three week diary or what and where of everything I had eaten. They didn’t even want blood, urine, or feces samples to confirm anything.

          • The_Countess

            to send the biologiest they would first need to know it was happening. the law in question actually says they need to inform the city they are going to feed the homeless. that wasn’t the case before.

            and first of all they aren’t stopping anybody from feeding the homeless, just adding a few rules for when you do so, for the homeless’s own safety.

            and secondly biologists are expensive. having them visit every soup kitchen in the country would be hugely expensive.

            as for your own case of food poisoning, to prevent false positives (and the wasted tax dollars that that entails) a policy of ‘one is none’ is most probably applied. only when a couple of people report food poisoning that can be related to each other do you get a full blown response to try and track the source down.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Whatever a biologiest is, I doubt one has ever been required to ascertain the safety of a human feeding operation before. Having participated in a number of chili cookoffs in Texas, I can’t remember ever seeing a health inspector of any kind or ever seen anyone sickened by food that they wouldn’t have normally been sickened by. I doubt that the American Red Cross would have been prevented from feeding their disaster chili to the homeless under the same circumstances. Why would the housing status of the hungry have any bearing on the wholesomeness of the food served? This is just another case of stupid megalomania, and could have been resolved by simply letting the homeless know the totality of the situation and let them decide for themselves, being competent adults.

          • The_Countess

            ” I can’t remember ever seeing a health inspector of any kind”

            would you know what they’d look like if you did?

            ” I doubt that the American Red Cross would have been prevented from feeding their disaster chili to the homeless under the same circumstances.”

            because they are a certified aid organisation, and therefor know the health and safety rules.

            “Why would the housing status of the hungry have any bearing on the wholesomeness of the food served?”

            it doesn’t. ALL food served publicly must meet health and safety standards.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            It seems that “ALL (of the) food served publicly (at Chipotle) must (not have) (met) health and safety standards.” And since Chipotle is owned by McDonald’s?

          • concerndcitizen

            Correct. Chipotle complies with all the health regulations, for sure. Why did that FAIL?

          • The_Countess

            it didn’t fail. People don’t regularly get a disease from Chipotle.

            health and safety isn’t about preventing indigestion or diaria from too much greasy food. those don’t spread, and are caused by personal choice, not pathogens.

          • The_Countess

            health and safety isn’t about preventing indigestion or diaria from too much greasy food. those don’t spread, and are caused by personal choice, not pathogens.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            diaria?

    • Techtor Gorch

      It’s about power. The statist impulse to control every facet of private life courses through the veins of every prog-lib, from the White House down to the Dallas City Council.

      • CitizenCharlesFosterKane

        Right. That’s why freedom loving conservatives try to regulate abortion. The authoritarian right has you brainwashed, chumpy.

        • Techtor Gorch

          Life is a God-given right. Defending innocent human life is hardly a power trip; it is a sacred obligation.

          OTOH, telling people who have that they cannot share with those who have not is the worst kind of abuse of power.

          • The_Countess

            yet conservatives want noting to do with actually preventing the need for abortions and cling to their long since obsolete abstinence only sex ed (if they have sex ed at all) because god.

            so its no wonder red states have up to twice the number of teen pregnancies and more abortions.

            a clump of cells with human DNA isn’t a human. and a woman’s life shouldn’t be held hostage because of it. you can have a debate about when it does become a human, but the vast majority of abortions (98.5%) happen long before that point, and pretty much all the rest are purely medical in nature.

          • Techtor Gorch

            If a clump of cells with human DNA is not human life, then what is it? Can that clump of cells become anything other than human life?

          • The_Countess

            become being the operative word.

          • Techtor Gorch

            Non-reponsive. Try again. If a clump of cells with human DNA is not human life, then what is it?

          • The_Countess

            it’s exactly that. a clump of cells with randomly fused human DNA. i can make a dozen of those on a pretri dish by throwing some human eggs cells on there and some sperm.

            nature itself (god, if you are so inclined) aborts between 30 and 50% of those, and i fail to see why we should have more reverence for it, unless the mother wants us to have reverence for it.

          • Techtor Gorch

            Randomly fused DNA? There is nothing random about it.

            Still, it’s the season for being generous, so I’ll sign off by saying you are the poster girl Hanlon’s razor.

          • The_Countess

            it’s completely random. it’s random which half of the chromosome pair ends up in a egg or sperm cell, and how often they swap between the pairs to make the new chromosome.

            and it’s random which sperm cell win’s and which egg cell ovulates.

            the only thing not random about it is that most of the time the pairs form up correctly.

            your hanlon’s comment would be hilarious given how much grief and suffering your ways of thinking have inflicted on people and how many more abortions and teen pregnancies they cause, if the subject matter wasn’t so serious.

          • Techtor Gorch

            You don’t know anything about my “way of thinking,” other than it is different from yours and therefore must be bad.

          • The_Countess

            different, that result in different policies that result in more suffering and injustice and THEREFOR bad.

            i wouldn’t give a hoot what you think if the results of those ways of thinking weren’t so disastrous.

          • Techtor Gorch

            There is an answer that would solve your problem (teen pregnancy) and mine (abortions), but you’re not interested in it, so I bid you goodbye.

          • The_Countess

            if you mean abstinence, it doesn’t work. the more sex education is forced on abstinence the worse teen pregnancies and abortions get.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Nature or God does so long before there is a heartbeat, and doesn’t do so by tearing pieces of the embryo off with a forceps, as is done during a D&E.
            nrlc.org/abortion/pba/deabortiongraphic/

          • The_Countess

            a 23 weeks abortion is pretty much always done for medical reason.

            98.5% of all abortions happen before week 21.

            and no, nature or god can abort at all stages of pregnancies even long after there is a heartbeat (week 10). natural abortions do usually occur early in the pregnancy. but that isn’t any different from elective abortions.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            What would be the medical reason?

          • The_Countess

            for example the mothers life could be in immediate danger because of the pregnancy, or the baby will be handicapped, or isn’t viable for a variate of reasons.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            How would a pregnancy place a woman’s life in immediate danger?

            If the child isn’t viable, why wouldn’t it be aborted or miscarried?

          • The_Countess

            there are many medical conditions that can surface because of a pregnancy. a pregnancy puts a woman’s body under much greater stress then normal, and for very long periods of time. that means pre-existing but dormant conditions can suddenly surface.

            and the details of why a fetus that isn’t viable wouldn’t always miscarriage is somewhat beyond my medical knowledge, but the fact that something went wrong in the first place is a clear indication that nature isn’t perfect. the mechanisms for detecting a non viable fetus therefor aren’t perfect either and can’t detect every eventuality.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            In the absence of specifics, I’ll have to accept that as a failure to refute Dr. Ron Paul’s repeated declaration that there is no medical condition that a pregnant woman could develop that would require the termination of the pregnancy to resolve. If nature can’t fix its own problems, we have to murder the fetus to fix them ourselves?

          • The_Countess

            well paul is objectively wrong.

            preeclampsia

            http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252025.php

            and here are a few other sources with reasons for a medical abortions.

            http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Medical_Reasons_for_Abortion

            http://www.livestrong.com/article/100407-medical-reasons-abortions/

            http://miscarriage.about.com/od/stillbirthlateloss/i/selectivetermin.htm

            “If nature can’t fix its own problems, we have to murder the fetus to fix them ourselves?”

            so letting it develop a brain, nervous system and the ability to feel pain first before letting it slowly and painfully die of its own condition is preferable?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            I know a couple whose daughter was delivered by cesarean section one month early because the doctors were unable to control the mother’s blood pressure to their own satisfaction well enough to let the baby be born naturally. Are you saying that they needlessly endangered the life of the now-happy mother by not ripping the child to pieces with a forceps at the first presentation of a preeclampsia threat?

          • The_Countess

            are you serious right now?

            1 month before due date is like week 36! Of course if a baby is viable outside the womb then a c section should be performed.

            why on earth would you think i would feel otherwise?

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            If a baby is outside the womb, why would a c section be required?

          • The_Countess

            wtf are you talking about. it wasn’t outside the womb when the complicated because of blood pressure occurred.

            “The source was Dr. Ron Paul himself, to me, following a 20 year career in obstetrics and gynecology, during which he delivered over 4000 babies without having to perform single abortion to save any of the mothers from the delivery of their children.”

            because he doesn’t deal with the early cases then obviously. and the hospital he worked at sent those women away (plenty of sources for that happening regularly with christian hospitals)

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            You are the one that posted, “Of course if a baby is viable outside the womb then a c section should be performed.” When he wasn’t seeing patients, he was attending sessions in Congress, being a sitting a congressman during most of his medical career. When Congress went on recess, he’d go home and deliver babies. He dealt with cases regarding women who he had delivered. His hospital privileges were admitting only, having done his residency at a women’s hospital. Unless you have comparable medical credentials, you have no credibility that I can see.

          • The_Countess

            if you read what he said carefully is that HE never saw a case where a medical abortion was needed.

            with ONLY 4000 cases in total over a ENTIRE CAREER, when there are over that number of births every 3 days in the US, he hasn’t seen it all. if something only happens in 1 in every 5000 cases or 10.000 cases then changes are he didn’t see it.

            basically you have 1 doctor turned politician claiming something anecdotal that resonates well with his base, and on my side i have medical facts, and the entire medical establishment.

            i don’t see how there could even be any question. the fact you don’t want to own up to because it doesn’t fit your world view is a entirely different issue.

            “Unless you have comparable medical credentials, you have no credibility that I can see.”

            and why would i need personal medical credentials but you can just cite a personal anecdote from Paul the politician?

            i already linked you to a explanation of a concrete medical FACT, verified by the medical community. you know, people who are interested in saving as many lives as they can, and not confusing it with getting votes.

            “You are the one that posted, “Of course if a baby is viable outside the womb then a c section should be performed.”

            that should have been fetus if you want to get Symantec, but i think that was pretty obvious. I don’t see how that would count against me or justify anything you said.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            First, why would a fetus be found outside the womb if it hadn’t been ripped out of it with forceps?
            Second, by what experience can you say that any medico that you cite, but have never encountered, “who (is) interested in saving as many lives as (s/he) can” are, when most of them would rather go to a pharmaceutical sales vacation than actually upgrade their medical knowledge and skills?

            Third, Dr. Ron Paul was never very concerned with getting votes, given the fact that he had delivered enough of those who voted for him, who did so not just because of his medical acumen, but also for his economic and constitutional knowledge. In his next to last congressional re-election campaign, his democratic opponent was endorsed by the Texas Republican Party, and he still won re-election by a landslide.
            Our world views are totally different. Your’s is based on more hours in front of a telescreen than I have ever spent.

          • The_Countess

            i said if the baby (fetus) is VIABLE outside the womb.

            in other words if the fetus has a chance to survive outside the womb because it is mature enough then a c-section should be performed instead of a abortion.

            i really can’t see how you could have misinterpreted that so badly. i am just in aw of you ability to misunderstand my words on purpose to make them fit your stereotypical image of me.

            ” when most of them would rather go to a pharmaceutical sales vacation than actually upgrade their medical knowledge and skills?”

            but obviously lord and savior Paul isn’t like that at all? ‘you can’t trust ANY dokters EXCEPT this one guy that says what i want to hear who’s a politician but never mind that.’

            and you’re ignoring the fact he also ran for the presidential nomination repeatedly. he clearly needed the votes there.

            “Your’s is based on more hours in front of a telescreen than I have ever spent.”

            not only is that unlikely, its based on absolutely nothing.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Sorry, but I was taught to read and understand proper english grammar. Got any?

          • The_Countess

            really? that all you got?

            just ignore every point a person has made because they made a spelling or grammar mistake caused by a typo, hasty typing or dyslectic perhaps?

            if that’s the level you need to sink to to ‘win’ arguments then it’s clear you’ve already lost.

          • RDaneel

            Why, yes it can. To prove that refer to The Countess!

          • Techtor Gorch

            Sweet. This is my first run-in with The Countess and I gotta tell you: She sets a new standard for delusional group-think.

          • The_Countess

            ow look personal insults without any substance or wit. how… predictable.

          • liberpublican

            Selfish much? Hostage? Of course a woman should take responsibility for her actions just as a man should. The only 100% effective birth control is obviously abstinence. Your right to control your body begins before conception and not after because after you are now taking someone else’s life.

          • The_Countess

            selfish? you’re not the one being forced upend your life to raise the unplanned child, your not the one who’ll be responsible for it financially. and most of the time people who are against abortions are also the ones against assistance for single mothers and the poor in general.

            all just so your misplaced and selective sensibilities don’t get offended.

            “The only 100% effective birth control is obviously abstinence.”

            so is that why the poster girl for abstinence only education, Bristol palin, is now tasked with raising a SECOND basterd child?

            again, its the red states that have the highest rate of teen pregnancies (up to TWICE as high!) because they ignore reality and continue to insist their pie in the sky ideals do work in the real world.

          • Techtor Gorch

            Unplanned child? (Your words.) Didn’t you just give away the store? You just admitted that pregnancy equals child.

            It’s tough to hold an untenable position, isn’t it.

          • The_Countess

            its the unplanned child they would need to take care of once its born (because you would deny them the right to terminate the unplanned pregnancy). i thought that would be clear from the context but you seem to want to interpret my words only to fit your own narrative.

            you’re also ignoring the points i was making in my reply.

            neither of those speaks highly of your willingness to have a fair debate.

          • liberpublican

            Obviously your narrative is that murder of a human being is morally acceptable simply because of the inconvenience of an “unplanned pregnancy”. It is very simple, if have intercourse, you are planning on a pregnancy. That is a scientific fact of biology. To pretend that somehow the child that is forming in a woman’s body is just a clump of cells to be disposed of for your own convenience proves your own lack of morals. Too bad your mother didn’t for see what a cruel and heartless person you would become and dispose of you. The 50 million children disposed of by abortion in this country is far worse shame than even slavery.

          • The_Countess

            sorry but it’s just not a human being yet. it feels no pain, it has no emotions, in most case doesn’t even have the start of a brain yet, let alone brain activity. there is nothing human there besides randomly fused DNA.

            the only shame for the country here is the fact that republicans stand in the way of providing proper sex education and access to contraceptives that could prevent the majority of those abortions, and then deny as much support as they can to the often single mothers they helped create because of it..

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            When does it become a human being if it isn’t a human being at conception?

          • The_Countess

            good question. and you can have a good debate about that. personally i think it’s the human mind that makes a person.

            so for me a ‘person’ starts to develop once brain wave activity becomes more then just a murmer, which is at 24 weeks. by that time 98.5% of all abortions have long since happend, and the few remaining ones are all medical in nature.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Heartbeats usually precede the possibility of electroencephalography.

          • The_Countess

            the heart is just a muscle that rhythmically contracts. it has no specially significance other then symbolic meanings, and it’s at all special or unique to humans.

            if say a person is brain dead, but their heart is still beating, very few people would object to eventually pulling the plug on that individual. Everyone knows that the person, the human, the individual, is gone.

            The presence of a heart beat doesn’t change that.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            The heart is under autonomic nervous system control, and the circulation it provides would be required to build and support a brain before it could produce any detectable brain waves, so heart beats would occur before brain waves, showing that a unique human being was well underway at the time it is ripped apart with a forceps during a D&E.

          • The_Countess

            Without the brain there can be no person, no human, no individual.

            The stepping stone towards making that brain are unimportant to the question of whether it is a person or not at a given point.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            You don’t believe in the existence of the soul?

          • The_Countess

            i have seen no reason to do so, no.

            in addition i see too many moral and logical problems with a eternal soul, particularly when combined with various variations of eternal punishment or bliss.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            You have never experienced intuition?

          • The_Countess

            sure, but i don’t see how that’s relevant to a soul existing or not.

            our brains are highly complex, and we experience only the end result of that complexity. we experience that complexity as consciousness. consciously we have almost no knowledge or experience of the intricacies that go inside our brain to create our thoughts.

            i therefor have no problem in accepting that our brain sometimes tell our consciousness things in a different way because it can’t ‘articulate’ (for lack of a better word) the information normally.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            I understand intuition as the knowing of things that were not learned, something I have experienced several times. I know things that I never studied or encountered before my knowledge of them became apparent to me consciously. If that didn’t come from outside of me, then I must have been born knowing everything:-)

          • The_Countess

            the brain learns far more then we are consciously aware of, and is very good at connecting the dots in seemingly unrelated experiences and facts. i see no reason to immediately jump to the supernatural to explain things that might have perfectly natural explanations for them, particularly when they involve the brain, which is a organ we are only just beginning to understand.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            I consider the supernatural to be a pejorative to avoid the recognition of the reality of the universe.

          • The_Countess

            i would agree with that, but i feel we differ on what we accept as reality, and what we classify as supernatural.

          • liberpublican

            You really are just a wretched person. The child may not be viable but it sure is alive. Just ask any biologist. Your overheated rhetoric proves you are unable to use logic or reason. You simply spout antihuman feminist blather. The problem with all these issues is simply that none of you want to take responsibility for you own actions. Once again it is very simple, you have sexual intercourse you better plan for pregnancy. To deny the life of a fetus is simply murder.

          • The_Countess

            i never denied it’s alive, i just don’t care. its not a person. its not a human being. it is, as i said before a clump of cell with random human DNA. i, again, see no reason at all to have reverence for it. not until much later in the pregnancy.

            ” Once again it is very simple, you have sexual intercourse you better plan for pregnancy.”

            this isn’t the 18th century anymore. birth control exists, effective cheap condoms exist.

            and teens are going to have sex PERIOD!

            you can’t stop them. But what you can do is give them to tools and information they need to protect themselves, and help them out if they messed up (they are teens after all, messing up is what being a teenager is all about) or if they are one of the unlucky few for whom controlling failed.

            this is exactly what i mean by republicans iving in ideological world devoid of fact. abstinence only DOESN’T WORK. yet here you are continuing to insist that it does. your own red state teen pregnancy figures show you all you need to know but you don’t care. the idiolgy is far more important then the fact to you.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Abstinence is not as reliable as sterilization, but neither should be mandated by law or medical fascism.

          • BenZacharia

            “…yet conservatives want noting to do with actually preventing the need for abortions ”
            No such ‘need’ exists!
            The_Countess </misspelled discription! Drop the 'o'.

          • The_Countess

            wtf is a cuntess? was that a attempt at a personal insult?

            And you are clearly wrong. before legal abortions back ally abortions were common, and put women en girls at serious risk. you are forcing women to return to those dangerous practices.

        • BarksintheCountry

          Nah, it’s killing of the unborn that bothers conservatives.

  • NonYo Business

    True Blue Patriots

  • Sovereign_Citizen

    Every time the government tries to get more and more authoritarian, people fight back with non-compliance. Wait until the day where they are gunning down politicians in the street. Then we will have real change we all need:)

    • roger

      they need to be seen dangling by their necks from lampposts and trees. make an example for other tyrants to witness.

    • Mark Williams

      Time for Tar N Feathers, Pitchforks and Maddox Handles!

    • The_Countess

      and this ‘change’ will include what exactly?

      • Sovereign_Citizen

        The Change we are talking about this time is the death of every single Liberal and muslim in America:)

        • The_Countess

          so… kill half the country because they have different idea’s then you.

          that reminds me of something…. from the middle east i think, often in the news….

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            Oh…the sad song of the Liberal who gets what they want. Liberals say there are too many people on the planet…Wish Granted:)

            Liberals are Traitors. It has nothing to do with a disagreement. Liberals are trash who do not deserve to live.

            The best part about this is you have to embrace me and my ideas and celebrate them. Otherwise you are a hypocrite:)

          • The_Countess

            nope, thing about liberal values says we should embrace hate filled assholes.

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            Oh I know…that is why Liberals have the reputation of being the kind and understanding cuz Liberal Values are enshrined all over for all of us to read and practice.

            You can find them in the offices of Dachau, Pol Pot’s Ministry, Lenin and Stalin’s Gulags…they are everywhere just to name a few.

            All Liberals should be shot in the face…we can take out the muslims next:)

          • The_Countess

            actual Dachau are like the ultimate conservatives: overly religious, clinging to the past and afraid of change, compassion, helping others, and non-violent solutions to problems.

            and, as is very common with your kind, your confusing communist with liberal.

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            Ha…not really…the Nazi’s were in charge of Dachau…nice try though:)

            Anytime you find Liberals you find government out of control. Communism, Socialism, Liberalism they are all the same and it’s practioners should be shot in the face in the streets and I do believe you will see that time:)

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            We are sitting here laughing like crazy at you:)

            “actual Dachau are like the ultimate conservatives: overly religious,
            clinging to the past and afraid of change, compassion, helping others,
            and non-violent solutions to problems.”

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH…yeah that describes us Conservatives to a T…you got us:)

            Soon Liberalism will be a funny footnote in history and all of it’s practitioners dead. You should leave the country while you still can:)

          • The_Countess

            you are aware hitler had the socialist wing of his party killed before assuming power right? with religion, xenophobia, warmongering and crony capitalism being the main stay of their policies there can be no denying their similarities to today’s conservatives.

            “Anytime you find Liberals you find government out of control.”

            and ow yes the top 10 best places to live are consistently social democratic hell holes. the people there clearly suffer tremendously because of it.

            “yeah that describes us Conservatives to a T…you got us:)”

            ya i’m rather proud of that one. i particularly like the part about conservatives being afraid of non-violent solutions. something you keep proving time and again.

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            Please…say it all again:) Liberals are crap. If you love socialism…move there:) You will live longer:) Maybe:)

            Yes yes…all of WW2 history is wrong and it really wasnt the Socialists that did all of that over there…they just kept the name NAZI for kicks:)

            I know Cuba is amazing as is North Korea and China this time of year right?:)

            Oh…we love non-violence…when it comes to humans…Liberals are not human beings. They are a subset of humanity.

          • The_Countess

            “.they just kept the name NAZI for kicks:)”

            ow wow. you must also believe that the democratic republic of Congo was actually democratic then, and and a republic. or that Democratisch Kampuchea was democratic, or that the peoples republic of north Korea is actually for the people.

            come here, i have a bridge to sell you! almost as good as new.

            “I know Cuba is amazing as is North Korea and China this time of year right?:)”

            i see you are still confusing communism, socialism, and social democratizes.

            “They are a subset of humanity.”

            so… humans then. (psst, subset doesn’t mean what you think it does)

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            See here is the thing. Every time you Liberals open your mouths…you make me more money:)

            I train people to kill people like you:) It’s true:) We have a nice big ranch and have fun all day long targeting and shooting at replicas of the Liberals:)

            People see your garbage online or in the news or whatever and they come to people like me and pay me money to teach them how to kill people like you when it hits the fan.

            So go ahead:) Keep yapping:) Show us all how incredibly smart you are!:) Show us how you got the best of us…I am looking to increase memberships this year and we are off to a smashing start:)

          • The_Countess

            so… a terrorist training camp then.

            please remind me… what was the difference between you and daesh again?

            and it seems i forgot to add ‘extremely afraid of intelligence and intelligent discourse’ to my list. sorry about that.

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            Of course:) With people like you as the target:)

            Please say more..we are booked solid through the end of August at this point which is much further than normal as typically we are only booked through the end of May but every little bit helps right?:)

            Last night in your honor? We went out and put pig urine on 5 mosques in the general area of our closest city:) We even left little pieces of paper that said:

            The_Countess Was Here

            Have a nice day:)

          • The_Countess

            have fun in your own little fantastic world.

            5 mosques… in the ‘general area’. HA!

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            The best part of this is you have been warned.

            I have done my part. When it all goes down and that dumb bastard sitting in the White House declares Martial Law? You like many people n here will be screaming for protection that never comes. We will hunt down and kill every last Liberal in America.

            Like I said, you should leave while you have the chance:)

  • whiteberry

    Wonderful! This group are true roll models!

  • Guillotine_ready

    Excellent and we all need to pitch in and make it spread, americans helping americans no wonder they hate it.

  • AllodialTitle

    Code enforcers, not Law enforcers. Codes are rules for government agents. We the Peeps created the initial government, why would the creator be subject to codes of it’s creation?
    Why on God’s green Earth would Man be subject to the myriads of puke codes / statutes of his creation that has perverted itself extensively- just like Man did to himself at the fall….. blame it on Eve,,,who blamed it on the serpent

    • freethedacks

      so called enforcers are just wanting to contract with you. Offer a conditional acceptance, and you remain in honor….”I’ll accept your offer to follow such and such code on the condition that you jump off a bridge”

      • AllodialTitle

        I’ll accept your offer of I owe you $250 for going 2mph over the legal limit if you swear via affidavit that you can authorize payment in anything other than gold or silver coin !!
        If the ‘judge’ does it :
        Next item on the docket: Motion and a 2nd to that Motion to hang the judge for treason

    • The_Countess

      except the ‘code’ they want enforce here is the code for health and safety so you don’t give them all food poisoning.

      that’s all the ordinance say’s, send us a e-mail, and don’t poison them.

      yes it’s clearly the height of government overreach and the precursor for a dictatorships right here.

  • marlio

    Good for you doing what is right, not what the Government wants.

  • Dave from San Antonio

    Civil disobedience…never looked so good. I can only imagine the field day the media would have if the “code enforcers” tried to arrest these people. Make that the alternative media…the lame-stream media would make it look and sound as if the homeless were being poisoned by “domestic terrorists”. Bravo to these people…they are doing the moral and right thing.

    • GenEarly

      The essential fact was that the Good Samaritans were armed, and doing the Lord’s work. That is an unbeatable combination at this point in time. It will not always be that way unless we stand up and Don’t Comply much more in every community.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2366NOeOQcY

      • Dave from San Antonio

        I fully agree. If more of us would organize and do this…the outcome might be pretty amazing. It would also be a way to point out some of the “bad laws” that are on the books.
        Never submit…to immorality or immoral laws…and point those out that support these ‘laws’.

  • YeahRightOkay

    …it has always amazed me how the dumbocrats and the reekpublicants constantly say…how we need to help the poor and homeless…then in the same breath make being poor and homeless ILLEGAL…go figure…GOD BLESS THESE FOLKS…!!!

    • WeeSee

      they are helping the homeless helping them to die slow

      because they are helping the illegals come here and take away American born peoples jobs as they send billions over seas to the poor huh

      • TomDPerkins

        No, they aren’t. Even if they are fine with unrestricted immigration, they are not. That is because they do not support the welfare state.

        • WeeSee

          take your government loving ass in to a hole and cover it

    • L O

      I agree…. Remember this???: “If you see something, say something”
      But if you say something you are a racist, a bigot, insensitive ,intolerant or whatever…..

      • TomDPerkins

        Actually the thing with Clock Boy is, if you see something, say something–but be sure you actually see something. There was nothing to see with Clock Boy, so they should be sued out of the their pensions for their stupidity.

        • L O

          Tom, so how do you excuse the neighbors of the san bernadino shootings?.. they saw something and didn’t say something for fear of ridicule.. why do you think the public should be held to a higher standard than Police.. cops dont have to bother actually seeing something as a REAL threat before acting,( Look at times square- No credible threat, yet they are acting like they are in a full blown war ) why should the public?.. just seems a little hypocritical to me.

        • ohio granny

          You mean like a pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun? That kid got suspended but clock boy gets a mega payoff. I call that stupid. Let a white kid take something to school like clock boy did and see how fast that kid is charged with inciting a riot and kicked out of school. Bet you nor the media would even care.

  • David Porterfield

    dudes what is the music on this video ? would love to know, many thanks

  • otis cambell

    Good for them. F ! their codes, ordinances, rules, fees, taxes, etc. Do what is right, & the gov’t be damned.

  • WeeSee

    that is what more and more people need to do on a lager scale
    on other things driving this country in to the ground is to

    Openly Defy that bad Law

  • JoAnn Dolberg

    God bless “Don’t Comply!”

  • longhorndude

    Just like Jury Nullification, some STUPID laws enacted by STUPID City Council bureaucrats need to be Nullified, i.e. disobeyed.

  • L O

    All politics are local… …..B@#ch slap your local leaders into submission!.. they work for you!, Not the other way around.

  • AirborneSoldier

    We need to tear more pages from their “Rules For Radicals”… How the left hates that!

  • http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/ Francis W. Porretto

    It’s impossible for a Christian such as myself to argue against feeding the hungry, but what about the enabling effects of mass giveaways such as this? Oughtn’t some thought to go to that aspect of the matter?

    • TomDPerkins

      No, because it’s trivial.

      Either you feed the hungry or you don’t is the whole matter. If you want to predicate getting better food on an attempt to be productive, sure.

      But as a first order of magnitude question, either you feed the hungry of you don’t…

      …you can scarcely wonder fairly, if capital L libertarians are in favor of the welfare state.

      • John Pryce

        It’s not the whole matter. Places that feed the homeless tend to attract the homeless. And there are good reasons why people don’t want the homeless around. So enabling is a factor here.

  • Calvin Coolidge

    Really, this is like making fun of Christians in the US. Feeding the homeless is a safe cause for civil disobedience. This is the very definition of Sheeple. Why don’t you actually do something more controversial? Libertarians are so boring.

  • radioone

    Petty Politicians and Brain-Dead Bureaucrats just can’t resist being “Large and In Charge”.

  • Techtor Gorch

    American by birth, Texan by choice. And you guys make me damned proud of it!

  • ohio granny

    This is the way to deal with tyrannical government bullies. Feeding the hungry and homeless requires a permit that must be paid for? What kind of idiot thinks/thought this is a good idea? I suspect that civil disobedience is about to break out all over this country and that will be a good thing.

  • Michael Lang

    Good for them!

  • tps

    This must be replicated, against a host of regulations, nationwide.

  • Douglas Thorburn

    The Dallas city council should be stripped of all possessions and id and thrown onto the street.

  • JDsHandsomeSon

    This is the model for dealing with the bully that is government generally. The power it has over us is only what we give it. There are ways to fight back and do so within the law. All it takes is for large numbers of people to simply refuse to comply, force the government to respond at great cost, then bog the system down with legal actions in addition to that cost. If freedom fighters are arrested, their comrades in great numbers should appear at the government offices so that government slows down further. Drive around the city blocking lanes, slowly moving at rush hour, having “mechanical problems” in the middle of major arteries. Government minions, those faceless tyrants who fly under the radar, live among us. They can be flushed out, identified, protested, followed, etc.

    Looters and rioters have clout because they upset government officials who dare not confront them. Law abiding citizens are not precluded in any way other than their traditional civility from doing the same. But as we see more and more each day our manners and fealty to the law is rewarded by abuse and contempt. So if incivility is what gets us respect, we can do it just as well.

  • DaTechGuy on DaRadio

    When the crowd is armed the question becomes: Is stopping people from feeding the hungry the hill I want to die on?

  • Nick

    Oorah!

  • Misanthrope

    Gee, I wonder why government is so interested in preventing citizens from helping each other directly?

  • David Jay

    Insta- lanche! It’s amazing that in the middle of a natural disaster city officials have the time to deliver code citations.

  • wlpeak

    Please change the headline. This was not a Texas (Republican) Law this was a Dallas (Democrat) ordinance.

  • Grizzly

    You shouldn’t be feeding the homeless, it just encourages them to congregate. If these people actually wanted to help the homeless, they would be getting them into drug treatment programs.

    Near where I used to live in CA there was a large public area with regular homeless feedings. Naturally, the bums all gathered there and left their used needles on the ground along with their trash. They would shout at their hallucinations on a full stomach.

    They’ll need their firearms once a few more homeless start moving in for the freebies.

  • CitizenCharlesFosterKane

    Awwww…aren’t the gun fantasists cute? Can’t go anywhere without their gun binkies.

  • blackballs

    Why do liberals hate America so much?

  • The_Countess

    that’s nice and all, but every time the government wants to do something about the actual causes of homelessness republicans cry about wealth transfer and taxes and nanny state ect.

    they don’t actually care about solving the homeless problem.

  • Fredrick Lemmon

    So if you actually read up on the situation, no law exists stopping people from feeding the homeless. The entire ordinance that the article says is “statist myriad of bureaucratic hoops” can basically be summed up as “Send up as email letting us know you are going to be doing this, don’t majorly violate any health codes or give them all food poisoning.”

  • richard40

    Even in an otherwise sensible freedom loving state like TX, it looks like the statist big gov liberty destroying fanatics still have control, at least in the cities. Does Dallas by any chance have a dem mayor, yes just googled it, they do, so that explains a lot.

  • The_Countess

    no, its only legal if you comply with health and safety standards.

    yes how dare they try and make certain the homeless aren’t given food poisoning!

  • hetz

    Feeding the homeless can cause more harm than good. Once accustomed to artificial feeding, they become less able to forage for themselves. The increase in local concentrated homeless population due to artificial feeding can promote the transfer of disease among them. Feeding can also alter their behavior so that homeless routinely travel in larger groups, which can make disease transmission more likely. In public spaces, the congregation of homeless caused by feeding can result in them being considered pests. Artificial feeding can also lead to the homeless aggressively seeking out food from people, sometimes resulting in injury. It’s best to let nature take its course.

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

      When the government creates artificial shortages of food in supermarkets, you’ll get to see how much harm can be caused by preventing hungry people from feeding themselves. The only kind of feeding which is common among most urban dwellers is the artificial kind, since they really don’t have much more than stray animals to forage among.

  • F. Huff

    Oh how screwed up the world has become. Actually it always was screwed up, it’s just the inmates are becoming more violent. So why has it become a crime to be a good samaritan in texas. What’s next?

  • James William Jr.

    no matter how inefficiently, and ineffectively, they do things, the government hates competition

  • Narf

    …so we’re not going to talk about food-handling licensing to ensure the food is safe when it’s handed out by people who may have nefarious intentions toward the innocent and voiceless?