One Thing Leads to Another

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kevin Bailey, 22, got into a fatal shootout with Solon, Ohio cops the other day. It all began over a minor traffic violation – failure to signal before changing lanes. Once he had Bailey pulled over, the cop claimed he “smelled marijuana” – and it went bad from there. Bailey took off, ran off the road and – as the cops closed in on him, fired his gun at the cops. The cops were better shots and Bailey was killed at the scene.Bailey shooting 1

Naturlich, the cops are portrayed as “heroic” – and have been exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Arguably, it was actually heroic – if foolishly so – for Bailey to have attempted to get away from the costumed enforcers who ultimately killed him. This will shock some readers, no doubt. Having been conditioned from youth to reflexively kowtow to authority (however constituted) they instinctively side with authority whenever there is a confrontation. But, consider: What was Bailey’s initial crime? Had he done anything to justify being waylaid by costumed enforcers? Oh, yes – a “law” was (allegedly) ignored. But who did Bailey harm by not using his turn signal before changing lanes? Obviously, the answer is – no one. Yet this was – is – sufficient pretext for costumed enforcers to begin a “harass and collect” traffic stop. (Which, by the way, now entitles the costumed enforcers to forcibly take a DNA sample as well as perform a strip search. Before you have been convicted of anything. The Supreme Court has ruled both measures to be “constitutional.” See here and here.)

If we lived in a free country – one in which people were free to go about their business without being stopped and fleeced at gunpoint by costumed agents of the state – Bailey would never have been stopped in the first place.

And if he’d never been stopped, the next escalation of the situation would not have happened:

“Is there anything illegal in the car?” Officer Steven Davis asks. “There ain’t no weed?”

“I’m getting a whiff of it out here.”

Bailey apparently had “weed” – or had recently smoked it. Or perhaps had a prior conviction for the victim-free “crime” of having/smoking/selling “weed.” Like many people (especially black people) Bailey probably knew that “I’m getting a whiff of it out here” is cop-speak for “you are about to be arrested.”Bailey shooting 2

At this point, Bailey no doubt began to feel The Fear. He knew what was on deck. That this would not be just a piece of payin’ paper for him. Imagine yourself in his shoes. Two armed and costumed flunkies of state authority are about to forcibly pull you out of your car, throw you face-down onto the hood of their state-provided vehicle, then roughly cuff and roughly stuff you into its back seat area for a trip to the clink. Perhaps you have a “record” – previous convictions for non-crimes involving the possession/use/sale of arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” You have already been in a state cage – and did not like it. You are desperate to avoid being put back into one. . . .obey pic

A second cop shows up and Bailey is “asked” – that is, ordered – to exit his vehicle. It is midnight at the oasis. Time’s up. Fight – or flight.

Or: Submit & Obey.

Bailey rolled up his window and took off. Just before doing so, he texted his mother:  “I love you, I’m gone . . . I’m not going back to jail.” Within minutes, Bailey would in fact be gone.

I don’t countenance Bailey’s firing on the cops. But arguably, he was acting in self-defense. He was being pursued by armed and hostile men, determined to kidnap him and put him in a cage. He hadn’t done anything – in terms of causing harm to another human being. Most people would agree that had the men who shot Bailey not been costumed men, Bailey would have had every right to do as he did.  To attempt to get away from them.

To resist.

So why, pray, does it become wrong to attempt to get away – to resist – when the armed accosters are costumed?

It is purely about social conditioning, that’s why. People are taught that anything is ok if it is “the law.”police state picture

And, the reverse.

So, it is ok – “legal” – to drink beer, to have beer in your possession, even to make beer. But it is not ok – that is, it’s “illegal” – to consume/possess/grow pot. The former is socially and legally sanctioned, the latter not.

It is purely arbitrary.

Rights, however, are not arbitrary. They apply universally. Bailey had the same right as a costumed enforcer to be left in peace, free from threats of physical violence directed at his person. They had no more right to waylay him at gunpoint than he had a right to do the same to them (or anyone else). Special outfits do not confer special rights. Nor do those not wearing special outfits have inferior rights (or no rights at all).

This is a simple ethical concept but very difficult for most people to accept – having been conditioned to never think in terms of rights but only in terms of “legal” and “illegal.”

The difference in perspective is everything.

We no longer have the right to be left in peace the moment someone with a costume and a badge believes we have done something “illegal” – because we no longer have rights.

It does not matter – that is, it is no “legal” defense – to point out that the “illegal” act has not caused any harm to anyone. Anything – literally, anything – the state decrees to be “illegal” is, by definition, sufficient “legal” pretext to vitiate our pic

This will not change until people – enough people to make a difference – have an ethical epiphany and instinctively as well as intellectually recoil from the use of force against people who haven’t done anything to anyone.

Until the only law that matters is: Live – and let live.

Throw it in the Woods?


  1. Been dying to get on this thread and rip some new clover assholes, but I’ve been snowed at work and sick on top of it.

    Yep, the all-organic, silver, vitamin D regimen doesn’t stave off all illness, just most of it! 🙁

    But I’m glad to see the usual suspects–you know who you are, you mean, horrible NAP-believing extremists–are doing capitol work ripping said new assholes.

    There’s one clover on this thread–I’ve been following it by the emails–who’s absolutely, positively the stupidest, most driveling fool I think I’ve ever read.

    Are people REALLY that infantile, that completely blind to logic, that statist? It’s an amazing phenomenon…the propaganda, the indoctrination, the brain-damaging pharmaceuticals, fluoride, vaccines, GMO’s and TV have literally transformed what was once a potential human being into a slobbering idiot. A slave. An Eloi, a prey animal. Not fit to be called even a ruminant, because at least those have the god-damned good sense to run when a predator shows up.

    These mental jellyfish genuflect, supine, urinally self-irrigate and expose their throats so the wolves can rip them out.

    I’ve been doing a whole lot of reading in the past few months, guys…I think I’ve mentioned a few of the books elsewhere.

    And I’m coming to a very positive conclusion: we’re going to win this thing.

    But here’s the way they’ve been won before: it’s fine to hone our arguments here…but we MUST all be out there in the world proselytizing freedom and liberty!

    We can’t all be Stephan Molyneaux, or Alex Jones, or famous at all. But break out of whatever shell you have and TALK TO PEOPLE.

    We’re scarily close to a critical mass.

    What’s the last person you randomly approached and said something crazy–like “I think the government killed Michael Hastings”?

    It works. And it gets easier and easier with practice. I’m starting to understand the guys wearing sandwich-board posters with “The End is Nigh!”–99% rejection rate, but the 1% is what matters.

    • I mentioned civil asset forfeiture to my cow-orkers. They didn’t even know what I was talking about. None of them. Before we had to get started with the meeting there was a little ‘can’t happen here’ and ‘trust the cop’ going on. It is astounding how ignorant the american public is. No wonder they think it’s all conspiracy theory…. they live in an illusionary world where all this doesn’t even happen.

  2. “they come with the threat of death….always.”

    Exactly. Poetic even. Right up there with, For Whom the Bell Tolls.

    • “CNS” is confused.

      He styles himself a Libertarian, but thinks a person who gets pulled over for no reason (other than a confected “offense” against a statute) should not regard this is a violent assault… and that said person (who maybe has a gun without the requisite permission slip and also “illegal” substances in his possession) should not get his panties in a bunch at the prospect of being imminently arrested and thrown in a cage, charged with more serious “offenses” that very likely entail long-term stays in a cage… and that to attempt to flee amounts to justification to use any means, including lethal violence, to prevent said flight. And that if said victim attempts to defend himself against lethal force with lethal force of his own, he deserves to be shot dead for it.

      Can you conceive of a less Libertarian position?

      • eric, the article never mentions anything about finding pot in his car so that’s a dead giveaway he had none. He rightly knew, as anyone with a lick of sense does, that when they used the “smell marijuana” excuse, it was just that, an excuse. They also never mention if his gun was legal, probably so or that would have been in the championing article for the cops and statists. He never replied to an explanation where I gave likely a couple likely scenarios of what “probably” happened. They knew him or of him, probably knew him on sight and he probably knew them. Even if he didn’t, he knew their “code” for doing anything they wanted to him. He was young but had it figured correctly. We’ll never know if he could have taken them at the spot of the stop. Hindsight is 20/20 so it’s a moot point. The fact, and it is a fact to anyone with half a brain, is he was targeted for what was about to turn violent had he not either fled or defended himself. I can promise no one will want to find out what “really” happened so we’ll never know. Whatever it was, it was done with the force of violence only a handreach away, something that was about to happen and may have happened. He might have fled as they reached for their guns. I’m an old man but they always go for their guns on a simple traffic stop. Just see how many will approach without their hand on their gun. None, exactly none of this “new breed” would even consider it. Hell, their biggest thing is life is “officer safety” coming before rendering aid or anything else they as well as you and I are obliged to do under their own laws. Cops haven’t been given a bye that I know of to not render aid but they do so with a gun in their hand until they know you can’t fight back or that you represent no threat to them. By their very own operating parameters, they come with the threat of death….always.

          • So in other words, you agree Bailey is a shining example of humanity, his only mistake was not trying to murder the police earlier, and people have the right to kill cops whenever they feel like it.Clover

            And to think I once said you made libertarians look bad. How silly of me. Clearly you are a paragon of values. Sorry for ever doubting your infinite wisdom

            • No, imbecile ( having explained this at length already) Bailey – the man – is not the issue. The principle is what’s at issue.

              Is it ok – moral/ethical – to punish people, to threaten them with violence, not for any harm they have caused but merely and only because they have violated some “law”?

              I say no.

              You say yes.

        • “eric, the article never mentions anything about finding pot in his car so that’s a dead giveaway he had none. He rightly knew, as anyone with a lick of sense does, that when they used the “smell marijuana” excuse, it was just that, an excuse. They also never mention if his gun was legal, probably so or that would have been in the championing article for the cops and statists.”Clover

          Fine, then if he had no pot, had not smoked pot, and had a legal gun, then he had even less of a reason to flee the cops. That means he would have simply been issued a ticket and sent on his merry way. Or perhaps let go with no citation at all.

          “The fact, and it is a fact to anyone with half a brain, is he was targeted for what was about to turn violent had he not either fled or defended himself”

          That’s one heck of a crystal ball you have there. Can I borrow it some time?

          “Whatever it was, it was done with the force of violence only a handreach away, something that was about to happen and may have happened.”

          Correct, only it was Bailey that had the violence a handreach away, and Bailey who used said violence, not the police. He fired his gun while theirs were holstered, end of story.

          • “Fine, then if he had no pot, had not smoked pot, and had a legal gun, then he had even less of a reason to flee the cops. That means he would have simply been issued a ticket and sent on his merry way. Or perhaps let go with no citation at all.”

            Your most imbecilic comment thus far.

            It assumes those cops were not itching for a bust – a bust over a non-crime (possessing “weed”) – and that cops never confect “suspicion” (such as “I smell weed”) to support an arrest over said non-crime.

            Those hero cops probably would only have issued him a ticket for that bag of weed – and the gun he had on him… They’d never have taken him to jail or charged him with a felony that entails potentially years in a cage. No reason to be afraid. No reason to try to flee. Cops are there to help us! And to keep us “safe.”

            Now I know you’re a troll. No one could possibly believe such a thing. Not anymore. Not with evidence to the contrary literally raining down from the sky almost every single day.

  3. CNS, try to grasp this. By their sheer presence, death is mighty close, just a bad move on your part, anything, something they merely imagined, hallucinated from the fear in their minds. They could have said anything to indicate they were going to try to take his life, such as You have a light out or something not requiring a search of his vehicle. They chose to put the guy on the spot with what may or may not have been a specious accusation. Either way, he felt like he was screwed. Obviously he feared having them find his gun, enough so to run from them. I know how he feels. He could have acquiesced and spent no telling how many years in prison or he could have left(which he did)and attempted to lose these predators or he could have(my way)simply shot them right there and gone on hoping they hadn’t called his plates in. I think they knew him and he knew them for things to have gone down this way. I can understand it. They use the old I smell pot, simply to panic someone so they’ll do something stupid or inevitable. I suspect he did something inevitable. It’s not an easy choice not knowing how many years they can put you away for with a gun or pot or the worst there is, pot and a gun, applying the “spray and pray” portion of the Brady Bill to send him directly to federal prison for who knows how long, depends on the prosecutor and his attorney, if he can afford one. Yep, it’s rigged, the whole “shitaree” as Ed so succinctly put it. Once you Actually Know The Law, you won’t have a problem of understanding Bailey’s actions. As a young man I wouldn’t have already made up my mind to simply blow their sorry asses away right then if I could and be done with it. That comes with age and experience.

    • CNS wrote, “They didn’t say or do anything to indicate they were going to kill Kevin Bailey. … At the point he ran from the cops, they had done nothing. ”

      You’re really not very bright, are you?

      I’m voting with liberranter, “ALL OF THE ABOVE”

      Yeesh, I should have read the other comments before I posted earlier, count me in: “… I won’t go back and forth with you any longer over non sequiturs, evasions and repetitive dishonesty. ”

      I watched an old old woman drive a car in front of me today. Her driving was like the stereotypical drunk person’s. When I saw her in the grocery store chatting with the ladies it was clear she was sober as a bell. She didn’t look like a random gunshot into the dark. It’s odd how clovers make the distinctions they do. So very odd, kind of like The Blob as it menaces towards the townspeople.

  4. Eric: “So, when a guy who is much bigger than you, or obviously armed, “asks” you to hand over your wallet, no force is applied against you?”

    Meaningless. I simply said they didn’t hold him up at gunpoint as you claimed, which is true. Holding someone up at gunpoint involves pointing a gun at them. Surprising, isn’t it?

    Eric “Yes. It’s a costume. A special outfit. You like to call it a uniform because you venerate those who wear it.”
    No it’s a uniform. I call it a uniform only because I venerate proper terminology. A costume is something you wear on Halloween. A uniform is what you wear at work. A uniform is a uniform no matter how much you like or dislike the person wearing it.

    Eric: “Not using a signal – when there’s no other traffic in the vicinity and so no possibility of any harm done – is not a “crime.” It is a violation of a statutory law, yes. But that is an entirely different thing.”

    The point is there is no human right to run a red light, drive intoxicated, blow through a stop sign, drive the wrong way down a one way street, or fail to use your turn signal when changing lanes. When you do any of these things, the police have ever right to pull you over for it. No rights were violated when the police pulled over Kevin Bailey. He wasn’t being harmless.

    Eric: “You’ll warble (cue that atrocious Lee Greenwood song) that America is “different” and our laws are all righteous laws.”
    If you were actually reading what I said, you’ll see I never said any such thing. There are plenty of terrible laws on the books in this country, and you certainly cited plenty of them. The laws Bailey violated or was suspected of violating (failure to use a turn signal, driving while under the influence, fleeing from the police at high speed in a motor vehicle, and attempted murder) are not among them. All of those laws would be valid in a purely libertarian society.

    You can scream Clover at me until you are blue in the face (as if that term has any real meaning) but the facts of this specific case will not change: Bailey was not being harmless. He was being an irresponsible driver at the start of the incident and a killer at the end of it. It was the killer part that ended his life. Violence was not used because he improperly changed lanes. Violence was used on his because he fled from the police and opened fire on them while their guns were still holstered. The police killed him in self defense. It was the textbook example of a time when under libertarian principles where violence is justified.

    • Still avoiding the key question.
      If he had ignored the cops and kept driving entirely normally, what would have happened to him? A ticket in the mail? Followed to his destination? Pitted into the ditch? What would happen to someone who didn’t stop? This tells us who makes the first action with violence behind it. The system of laws you advocate for are violence based.

    • A costume is Not Only something you wear on Halloween. A clown wears one at a circus at their work place. Actors wear them in productions at their work places. There’s many instances. The difference is perception. A uniform is Not just a uniform.

      And yes, the term ‘Clover’ has meaning.

      “The police killed him in self defense.” Is that a joke? It seems like one. One like any other bully would make in an attempt to justify their actions.

      • CNS wrote, “When someone shoots at you, you are allowed to shoot back. That is self defense”

        That’s not exactly true. For cops, they can do anything and get away with it. For mere mundanes, if they do something, such as taunt a person first, they are no longer justified. The cop in this instance made a threat to haul the guy away, and the reason – why – makes it just plain wrong. But you’re A-ok with some animals being more equal than others, that’s what makes you the collectivist clover that you are today.

        Also, Wal-Mart workers, Postmen, and pro football players aren’t any different than clowns and other actors, they’re all just wearing a costume while providing a service. Some provide voluntarily asked for services, others force their ‘service’ onto everyone. But they all wear costumes.

        If their costumes are all the same, there is uniformity, a.k.a. uniform. A.k.a. they march in lock-step. But they still wear silly costumes that serve a purpose. With cops, that purpose is intimidation.
        Your purpose seems to be gathering praise for your masters and defending and excusing the reprehensible.

    • Clover,

      You’re either dishonest, dumb – or just a troll. I’m not sure which. But to claim that cops – men with guns and the authority of the state behind them – are not using force, not initiating force, when they initiate contact (i.e., pull you over) and you are not free to peacefully continue on your way – is simply untrue.

      We can have a debate the rightness or wrongness of armed men using the clear/imminent threat of violence in order to compel compliance with statutory laws (as opposed to keeping the peace). But I won’t go back and forth with you any longer over non sequiturs, evasions and repetitive dishonesty.

      On “costumes.” That’s what they are. Special outfits worn to create an identity. Work – or not – irrelevant. You’ve just been conditioned to use an honorific for the costumes worn by the state’s enforcers. Take off the costumes and what have you got. Just men. Usually, unimpressive ones. Think of Eichmann with – and without – his costume. It’s exactly the same with regard to the latter-day SS that enforces “the law” in this country. I have explained – repeatedly, using facts and specific examples – why these cretins are exactly like the SS in principle, if not yet in totality (but getting there). You won’t discuss it. You only want to defend what the costumed enforcers did to Bailey – because you don’t like Bailey (and who says I did?) but are too dumb to see the principle – the Libertarian principle – that’s at issue.

      You continue to insist that Bailey was being “irresponsible” by not signaling. I have repeatedly asked: How so – given there was no other traffic present and thus, it was not physically possible for his failure to use his signal to have harmed anyone. I pointed out that what Bailey did was to violate a statute. Nothing more. This is a factually correct statement. Your statement is factually incorrect. Yours is nothing more than a Cloveritic assertion, one that equates theoretical risk with actual harm. That is, there’s no difference between failing to signal in the presence of oncoming traffic and actually causing an accident and merely failing to signal – even if it’s the case that there’s no other traffic around and so, no chance that failing to signal could even conceivably cause harm.

      “The law is the law.”

      And you continue to claim you’re a Libertarian!

      Look: You very clearly support some level of government authority that goes beyond the Libertarian ideal of forcible interposition being limited to actions that cause specific, demonstrable harm to actual victims (or clearly and imminently threaten such harm). That’s fine. I’m happy to debate “small government” conservatism – or whatever – vs. Libertarianism. But stop claiming you’re a Libertarian. Because you can’t be one – if you make statements and arguments such as you’ve made.

      • I’m simply pointed out your wrongful use of the term “gunpoint. It’s not gunpoint if no guns are pointed. Why is this so hard to understand?

        The statutory laws in this case are part of keeping the peace. Sensible traffic laws like laws against DUI do keep the peace on the road. DUI is like firing a gun in random directions. It doesn’t matter if no one is harmed. The imminent risks justifies police use of a traffic stop to intervene on libertarian grounds. That goes for most traffic infractions too.Clover

        Take off the uniform and the man is a man too. The doesn’t make a uniform any less of a uniform. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with improper terminology, since using the proper term wouldn’t change any point you make, but you don’t have a free pass to re-write the dictionary. Eichman wore a uniform. The SS wore uniforms. Did that make make them honorable men? No, they were monsters. But that doesn’t make their uniform any less of a uniform. A uniform has no bearing on the morality or honor of the person wearing it. As you said, the people who wear them are still human.

        Violating traffic laws is irresponsible. You can argue no one was harmed, but to use your own words, principles matter. Sensible traffic laws like laws against DUI, blowing a stop sign, driving 100 MPH over the speed limit, are things that need to be followed universally to maintain traffic safety. Libertarianism does not require one to tolerate imminent present threats to others (such as DUI) until harm occurs. Again, the random gunfire comparison is apt.Clover

        Furthermore, Bailey was not harmed by the cops pulling him over. Nor would he have been physically harmed if they wrote him a ticket, which we don’t even know that would have happened. The loss of a few minutes of one’s time and a small fine is legimtimate response to violations of legitimate traffic laws. It was all based on Bailey’s actions, and things didn’t turn deadly until Bailey made it so.

        And where did that “the law is the law” quote come from? I never said it, so once again you are resorting to dishonest strawmen. I never said all laws were good, just that the particular laws violated in this case were. All such laws were totally consistent with libertarian principles. It is you who proves to be the false libertarian by claiming there is a human right to endanger other lives by violating traffic laws, so long as no one is harmed. That’s like saying there is a legitimate right to enter someone’s house when no one is home without permission as long as you don’t take or break anything. You are an anarchists using a phony libertarian, and you might as well admit it.

        • That is some fucked up thinking: “The statutory laws in this case are part of keeping the peace. Sensible traffic laws like laws against DUI do keep the peace on the road. … It doesn’t matter if no one is harmed. ”

          I wonder why clovers don’t demand all aircraft be banned? After all, they could crash, just like an intoxicated person driving a car.

          They have a funny notion of the word, “peace’ too.

          I watched the film, The Andromeda Strain recently. The main characters went deep underground into this super lab. To get there they had to be super sterilized so no germs could reach the bottom level. I think maybe that’s Clover’s version of heaven.

          I’m going to go eat a salad now, it might be tainted and could kill me, I’m lucky the king of the Clovers hasn’t outlawed this food yet, after all, it’s like a random shot in the dark. And we should always be fearful of shadows, that’s what makes us Muricans!

          • So I’m sitting here eating my potentially-deadly-soon -to-be-banned salad and I’m thinking how it’s kind of funny how boot-licking goberment lovers would think Eric Peters is an anarchist.

            I’m an anarchist, and from this angle, it seems clear to me that Eric Peters ain’t no anarchist.

            Not yet, anyway.

            Ok, now I’m off to Jon Rappaport’s website to read about stuff like how doctors and the FDA kill millions of people and no one says a peep. There’s no checkpoints setup to catch lying FDA bastards anywhere. I wonder why that is? Oh shit, its that, “some animals are more equal than other animals”, thing again, ain’t it? Cause there’s nothing ‘potentially dangerous’ about doctors and the FDA. Nope. No sir E.

        • “Violating traffic laws is irresponsible. You can argue no one was harmed, but to use your own words, principles matter. Sensible traffic laws like laws against DUI, blowing a stop sign, driving 100 MPH over the speed limit, are things that need to be followed universally to maintain traffic safety.”

          I’m sorry, but I need to interject here. I blow stop signs, speed way over the limit, but never drive drunk. It’s my choice. Nobody in the last 30 years of my blowing stop signs and 290km/h has been harmed – not even close. I make sure everyone around me knows exactly my intentions according to road rules. If there’s nobody around, why bother?

          There are no statistics to prove in any way how many people were “saved” from drivers under the influence, or how many were saved by speed cameras. If you have such figures, I bet they’re fake. Think about it.

          Simply put, speed cams expect you to arrive home alive over the next 7 to 14 days in order to receive the ticket! The vast majority of drunk drivers make it home alive without crashing or harming anyone. Statistics overrule your claims. No matter how much the Powers-That-Be interfere in our lives in the name of saaaaaafety can’t possibly claim their efforts are making anything safer, because statistics show otherwise.

          Do I care if the driver heading my way is drunk, unlicensed or sleepy? What difference does it make? I have to ensure he doesn’t hit ME! That white line up the centre of the road (double-white or otherwise) isn’t a brick wall. YOU must ultimately be responsible for your own safety.

          Throughout my life on the road I’ve been targeted by either drugged, drunk, sleepy or mostly just everyday morons. The only reason I survived over the last 30 years and able to front these charges, Your Honour, is because a small, fast moving target is very hard to hit. Time to face the truth CNS. You’ve been outgunned.

          • I agree speed cameras are total BS. You can’t go to traffic court and argue your case against a camera. Traffic violations should require a human observation and interaction to confirm.Clover

            As for DUI, I keep pointing out its absurd to emphasize how many times drunk drivers make it home. I live in a pretty remote area. If I walked outside my door and fired 5 random undirected gunshots every morning, there is a good chance no one would ever get hit. That doesn’t mean I should be allowed to do this. It’s still an imminent risk to the public

            • Clover,

              A person with “x” BAC – arbitrarily decreed by statute – is not necessarily meaningfully impaired in terms of his capacity to be a safe, competent driver. That’s a fact. Because people differ in terms of their skill sets – as well as how their bodies handle alcohol. If you take a driver who starts out with a skill level that’s 50 percent higher than average he may still be a better driver after a few drinks than a poor – but sober – driver.

              Point being: You favor punishing people for “drunk” driving even when their actual driving cannot be faulted . . . when the only “crime” they’re guilty of is having “x” BAC.

              Just as you favor waylaying people (like Bailey) whose only “crime” was not obeying a statute – even though they neither caused nor could be said to have threatened actual harm to anyone.

              Do you not see the viciousness of this?

              I keep trying to get across to you that you cannot support punishing people who haven’t done anything to hurt others and continue to claim Libertarian status.

          • Those who believe the law is the law, should not have any problem with automated enforcement. The problem with the camera can’t be not being able to question it in court for it’s not like traffic court is even remotely fair with a live cop. The law is the law types never object to all the streamlining that makes just a pocket picking exercise. The word of the cop is good enough for them. So why do so many object to automated enforcement?

            It is my belief they object to automated enforcement because the machine isn’t selective. It can’t tell the bad people from the good people. So what happens is these law is the law types that haven’t been pulled over in 20 years start getting tickets and they don’t like it.

          • “Those who believe the law is the law, should not have any problem with automated enforcement. “Clover

            When did I ever say “the law is the law”?

            “The word of the cop is good enough for them. So why do so many object to automated enforcement?”Clover

            The word of the cop is not good enough without being subject to cross-examination. Traffic cameras can’t be cross-examined, so they are illegitimate. Also they are mechanical devises which, like all mechanics, can fail. If a camera malfunctions and wrongfully issues a ticket to someone who isn’t speeding, that person is left totally screwed.

            • Clover,

              You’ve repeatedly defended the actions of the cops who pulled Bailey over. Not for any harm he caused or threatened. But merely – and solely – because he violated “the law” that says one must signal before turning. Even if there are no other cars around. Because the law is the law.

              The word of a cop is worth no more – and often much less – than the word of a Mere Mundane. Yet the word of a cop is taken as almost holy writ by most judges. Whereas the word of a Mere Mundane is taken as inherently suspect or utterly dismissed.

              And: “Wrongfully speeding”?

              Again – note your explicit approval of statutory crime. That driving faster than an arbitrarily posted number constitutes the “crime” of “speeding” and that this is “wrong” and deserves to be punished.

              You’re a government-snuggler, CNS. An authoritarian. Part of the problem. It’s people such as yourself that are responsible for the American police state. May you one day come to realize – and regret – this.

          • CNS, you have repeatedly given the mantra that he broke the law thus what follows from that, the intrusion of state, is acceptable. This is your basis of defense for the cops. The law is the law and he broke it so the government employees were justified in their action to pull him over. That’s what you’ve been arguing for days.

            Then you turn around and post a comment, which I replied to but seems to not be here last I looked for it, where you expressed that you were not supportive of automated enforcement because you can’t question a machine. You can question the cop all you want in traffic court it isn’t going to help you with regards to a common traffic violation most of the time. The entire process has been streamlined for revenue purposes over the years with the cheers of people who wanted traffic violators punished. After all to them the law was the law. Well until they get selected anyway.

            However automated enforcement has had wide disapproval. It loses everytime it is voted on. Governments of all levels do everything in their power to override the will of the people. This is very strange. In all these decades the average american has had no objection to the streamlining of traffic business. In fact he usually votes for the guys who are going to get tough on traffic offenders. They still do. They react like you to libertarian ideas with regard to traffic. It’s bogglesome. Logically the people who wanted the cops to crack down, to enforce the law, to have more laws on the books for driving, who have been cheering the last three decades or more of a more intrusive traffic cop should love automated enforcement. Some do, but they are few and far between. So I think to myself what’s the real difference here?

            Traffic court is not a fair place. If the average american had complained the way he does about automated enforcement it wouldn’t have gotten that way. So to me this reason has no merit. Most people just pay the fine one way or another anyway. They look at people who fight traffic tickets as kooks. So no, this doesn’t hold up to examination. What’s difference is that machines don’t care what a person drives, what his skin color is, what time of day it is, if he is from out of state, or anything else that a real cop notices. The machine doesn’t filter. It tickets everyone. That’s got to be the reason so many people hate them. And while I hate the scam of automated enforcement I enjoy watching the clover masses squirm when they are treated like the way they advocate others be treated.

            BTW, real cops lie, their equipment malfunctions, etc and so forth. I’ve yet to see the average american fight traffic tickets from real cops. It’s only us kooks that fight traffic tickets.

        • Further, CNS – I’ve won many cases against speed cams, because the cam is actually the informant, which can’t appear in court to be cross-examined. The magistrate has dismissed the case entirely simply on those grounds. Argue against that.

          • I’m glad you won those cases. That makes perfect sense. Speed cams are a total joke. They should be rejected on grounds that they can’t be cross-examined.Clover

            • “They should be rejected on grounds they can’t be cross-examined.”

              Notice your implicit authoritarianism?

              It doesn’t matter to you – doesn’t occur to you to ask – whether the “offense” itself is legitimate. Just procedure.

        • Clover,

          You’re a quibbler – an illiterate one, to boot.

          An armed man with the authority of the state forces you to comply by using the implicit threat of violence – to be exercised the moment you decline to comply. He initiates force to make you do as he says – or else. By definition, this is violence directed toward you. Whether he actually draws the gun is irrelevant. You are being held at gunpoint. When an armed man forcibly detains you – you have been threatened and forced to comply. The mere presence of his gun (and his legal authority to use it if you don’t do as he orders) constitutes the force and the threat.

          “Sensible” traffic laws, Clover? Says who? You? According to what objective definition? Every single day – literally – I “run” the stop sign at the crest of the country road that’s about a mile away from my driveway. I live in a very rural area; often one is clearly the only car on the road. When I say “clearly,” I mean exactly literally that. At the intersection, one can see half a mile in either direction. There is no chance whatsoever (unless an oncoming car has a cloaking device) that I am in any way putting anyone else at risk by not coming to a complete stop before proceeding – so I don’t. But if some asshole cop decided to hide in the bushes, he could legally go after me for the “violation” of statutory traffic law. No harm done, no harm that might have been done – and the cop knows it. But “the law is the law” – and he will enforce it at gunpoint. You support this. Punishing people not for any harm they’ve caused or could have caused – but only because they’ve ignored some arbitrary rule set forth by those who control the organized violence of state authority.

          That’s a position utterly anathema to Libertarians. Not arguable. No nuance. It is just is. Either you believe in leaving people alone until their actions cause actual harm to an actual person (as opposed to offending a statute). Or you do not. If the former, you’re a Libertarian. If the latter, you’re at best a small government “conservative,” i.e., you believe that “some” forcible interposition against peaceful individuals is acceptable, even when no harm has been caused, for other reasons – such as “safety” or “the public good.” All of which is fine – in the sense of that being a political-philosophical viewpoint. But it is not a Libertarian viewpoint.

          “Uniform” – rather than “costume.” Pedantic pettifoggery derived from your worshipful attitude toward those who wear costumes of authority. You literally can’t see that it is just a costume. No different than a clown’s costume or a circus ringman’s costume.

          “DUI” – I have explained the fact that one can be convicted of “drunk” driving purely on the basis of an arbitrarily established BAC level. No evidence of dangerous driving. Are you too simple to comprehend the distinction between having “x” BAC and dangerous driving? No – you, like all Clovers, equate “x” BAC with “drunk” driving.

          I gave you a very specific example to ponder – and respond to. That Driver A – an excellent driver, with excellent reflexes and judgment – is still better able to control his vehicle even after having had a few drinks than Driver B – an old man with poor vision and slow reflexes who is nonetheless completely sober. Driver A does nothing (in terms of his actual driving) to indicate he is not in control of his vehicle, but gets arrested for “drunk” driving because he “blew” an arbitrary BAC at a “sobriety checkpoint.” Driver B – the old coot – wanders across the double yellow and into an oncoming car. He might be charged with a minor traffic offense. But he will not be arrested and thrown in a cage for “impaired” driving. Yet which of the two was meaningfully impaired as evidenced by what actually happened?


          “The loss of a few minutes of one’s time.”

          Ah, the sin qua non of authoritarian thinking. Our rights don’t matter. being left in peace doesn’t matter. What matters is compliance – Submit & Obey.

          And you tout yourself as a Libertarian!

        • The uniform is a symbol of the violence of the state. It says if you do not obey the uniform, you may be killed. The man in it is irrelevant, he simply animates the uniform. The gun is part of the uniform. The uniform is the state.

          You’re still ignoring the vital question, and it goes to the uniform, what would have happened if he had kept driving normally? Endangering no one. Not stopping. The violence that uniform is, would have kicked in. You know it as well as I do. Thus the first act here is pulling someone over for an offense against the state.

          Since one must have the right of way to make a move, failure to signal endangers no one. Making a move without right of way (a different offense that varies depending on the move) can endanger someone, but failure to signal the move does not. Unless one believes in backasswards clover law, which turns right of way upside down.

    • CNS,

      You are to much! The only reason that any violence took place is because of the “law enforcement officers” (which is distinctively different than peace officers). The fact is that this entire event escalated into violence because these costumed thugs where attempting to rob a man through a traffic citation (which is an indirect tax a.k.a. indirect robbery under Colour of Law). This man’s driving harmed no one. This is dealing in reality. Using state violence based on a speculative injury is childish and morally and ethically irresponsible. The government goons have no business in people’s lives whenever there is not a tangible injury to a natural person.

      This goes for any type of crime. For instance, the boogeyman known as the D.U.I., is used to force the moral behavior of one group of people onto another. The mere act of driving under the influence is not an inherently evil act, just not the best choice for the individual to make. If the person has harmed none, then there should be no state sanctioned violence, force, coercion and theft against that individual. If the person has harmed someone, then they need to be held responsible for their actions that actually caused a tangible injury to a natural person (e.g. they crashed their vehicle into another vehicle causing property damage and bodily injury). At this point, the individual has caused a tangible injury to another person, and must be held responsible by repairing the other person’s vehicle and assume responsibility for their medical bills. In addition, real rehab (not a joke of a program like AA) should be required for the individual. If a person’s alcoholism has caused a tangible injury to another, then curing them of alcoholism is the best way to prevent them from hurting another person. Caging them like animals is barbaric, inhumane and not a fitting action for a truly civilized society.

  5. Eric,

    In light of the trend the comments have taken, I highly recommend everyone here to read a great Amazon Kindle book that I purchased last week. It’s actually 2 books….”Going Home” and “surviving Home” by Angery American.

    It’s about the breakdown of society but mainly it’s how the masses will react due to their dependence on government. It’s an amazing read.

  6. Making your own Hitler Video isn’t as easy as I thought.

    Hitler Is Told About Eric Peters Autos

    Looks to be too many words in too short of a time span to read without the pause button.

  7. Sometimes One Thing Leading To Another Ends With A Clean Justified Kill

    Trespassing Butsfield, Englan Planning Pig planning to bulldoze a man’s bungalow built without permission, ends up getting killed by the property owner instead.

    Harry Collinson – Justifiably Killed To Stop His Theft of Albert Dryden’s Property

    Video Comments:

    Like a bunch of fucking children. They’re trying to steal a man’s property, he walks up and points a gun at them and they all stand there….then, well, wha’da’ya’know, he fires the gun at them, and they run and recount the experience like it was out of this world.

    Jesus fucking christ governments are so fucking retarded.

    …Americans wouldn’t have been that dumb to stand there.
    – – –
    He built it as a retirement place for his Mother who passed on whilst all the red-tape was being processed. YES, IT IS the middle of nowhere and was virtually invisible from the road because he’d also landscaped it to stay (mostly) invisible.
    Why should ANYONE tell a man what he can or cannot do or build on his OWN land.
    – – –
    poor council worker he didnt deserve that…
    … yes he did…..i hope he rots in hell the cunt
    – – –
    I worked with Albert a good bloke pity he is still locked up.he should be out now.
    – – –
    Harry Collinson the planning officer was a complete arrogant basterd who deserved everything he got.He pushed poor Albert Dryden to the edge for years knowing he had weapons in the house.Even when his mother died he turned up at the door with a letter telling him he had 7 days to leave the property.When Dryden explained he hadn’t yet buried his mum,Collinson said “Well there’s a skip outside just chuck her in there”,which he said supposedly as a joke.
    – – –
    Councils seemingly have no issue with greedy developers building hidious, monolithic retail parks and super market chains all over the countryside, but take issue with a man who tries to build a modest home that has virtually no impact on the landscape. Something is deeply wrong in this country. I can’t condone what Dryden did, but I can’t exactly blame him either. The state continually antagonised him and backed him into a corner, how do you think he was going to react?
    – – –
    The reaction of the bureaucrat to the whackjob with the revolver is very strange. They’re there to tear down the dude’s house, he pulls a gun and points it at them and the suit calmly asks the cameraman to “get a shot of this gun?…
    …The council brought the news cameras in as part of a planned ‘showdown’ to show they were authoritative. They deserved what they got.
    – – –
    can you send mr dryden to wandsworth council offices
    – – –
    fuck that counsel officer, i bet his co workers with think twice about fucking with a mans hard work and everyday life.
    – – – – – –

    This proves the Gun is mightier than the Clipboard

  8. Petition demanding Barack Obama resign. It got 400 more signatures while I was reading it.

    “President Richard Nixon resigned after wiretapping a handful of journalists, sparing the nation the ordeal of impeachment. We call on Obama to do the same…”

    Article In UK’s The Register
    Why I’m boycotting US cloud tech – and you should too

    This does not go nearly far enough. The current administration and its complacent sheeple must all be boycotted and shunned in their entirety.

    America has lost the confidence of the world and should be disbanded. The American based United Nations has breached the trust of the world and should be disbanded.

    A World Wide Drone No Fly Zone need to be immediately commenced. All unmanned near earth or satellite surveillance vehicles should be shot down on the site.

    If need be, this would include Russia, China, India, and the ESA taking down all US orbitting structures, unless it can be demonstrated, they have no military or surveillance capabilities of any kind.

    Any other nations engaged in aerial warfare must decease immediately as well.

    Any trespassing manned flights should be followed to their landing sites, and from there, they should be taken into custody and brought to justice.

    During the 9-11-2001 hijacked flights 3/4ths of the Americans on board failed to stop the murder and atrocities of a few determined men.

    Now the entire Nation of America has been hijacked. Our battlecry should be the same battle cry of Flight 93’s Todd Beamer. A brave man of action, who uttered these final courageous words before minimizing the impending death and destruction:

    “Are you guys ready? Okay, let’s roll!”

    That’s the battle cry any Americans who are awake and willing will need to make if they want to stop the Hijacking and terrible events about to unfurl, if America isn’t put back in check and then broken down into smaller, less offensively powerful, and less malevolent pieces.'s_roll

    Each individual must decide what action to take and when. All that is necessary is for enough people to have a “Let’s Roll” moment so that this Hijacking can be brought to an end. So we can get back to the ordinary business of living. We’ll try to take control back and land safely citizens of the world, but there are no assurances or guarantees as to what the outcome will be.

    That is what being a Hero is really all about.

  9. Ah, I see, the Clovers of the world have utmost faith in the judicial system. It’s religious even. That’s why they say things like, “answer for his actions.” The Clover mind is not aware or refuses to accept how the deck is stacked, and how the unitedstate is, Channeling the Soviet Union: How U.S. Federal Criminal Law Has Reincarnated Beria

    The Clovers think every-man gets his fair shake in a courtroom, so they cannot see why an individual wouldn’t submit to going into one.

    The Clovers cannot fathom How the Feds Target the Innocent:

    They cannot even comprehend the idea of “selective prosecution.”:

    Between an ignorance of how the court system is, and seeing petty non-crimes as though they were a certain life ending outcome, it’s no wonder they are as screwed up as they are. And it turn, they help to screw up the world.

    I now understand how Northerners returned escaping slaves and why Jim Crow laws lasted as long as they did. It’s all due to Clover’s unshakable faith in the ‘justice system’ as an unfailing god. Add a dash of love for what’s perceived as unfailing legislation, and you have the makings of a fully fledged useful idiot:

    The Tyranny of Good Intentions, no doubt. And they’re not going to use their brains to see how their position is wrong headed in every way. That’s what makes them useful idiots.

    • Immediately following the War of Northern Aggression, the “free slaves” who had moved north found out just how free they were.

      Any assemblage of three or more negros not engaged in labor was a crime, and they were quickly locked up. Negros singing in public or making non-white gestures were subject to arrest. Intermarraige between races was made illegal in all states until 1895 save a few minor temporary exceptions.

      They generally were excluded from public education institutions. Fines for violation were typically $1000 and then$100 each day. Sometimes a special school was built for them, usually 25 or miles apart or more by statute, often it was not.

      Immediately after the war, the states passed laws forbidding non-whites use of public transportation or coaches, whipping being the punishment. Around 1900, separate but equal started coming into existence, since there was now a profit to made from Negroes who had earned some money.

      In the best case, the Negro enjoyed the same freedoms anyone does in a Borg Cube society. The right to be assimilated. The right to act exactly like everyone else is commanded to act.

      All are the masters of all. Some masters are more important than others. The master is the man with the money, the man who owns the property. Who can at any moment declare your money unacceptible.

      The master is the dominant church and religion of the area. Who can put you in jail for adultery, for being lewd, for swearing, for drinking on Sunday or in a dry state.

      The master is governing class who at anytime may expropriate you back into temporary slavery to do public works or to go to war. Who can take as much of your property as he wants. Whenever he wants, by calling it a tax, a tariff, a duty, or some other term of swindle and confiscation.
      Development of State Legislation Regarding Free Negroes

      Jim Crow Laws By State

      e.g. Nevada 1957 Miscegenation Statute
      It is a gross misdemeanor for white person to marry a person of black, brown, or yellow race.

  10. “Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because “too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that refusal to comply carries a penalty.”

    They are passing a new law in New York that makes it illegal to “annoy” a police officer. Of course they site the old canard about how dangerous it is. LOL I used to work on a Farm that was dangerous, I worked in a factory that was dangerous. By comparison cops have a very safe job and they get paid well for wearing their cute little costumes and beating on people. Gee I wonder if that is why they are losing the people’s respect?

    “The State Senate passed the bill Wednesday that makes it felony to “harass, annoy, threaten or alarm” an on duty police officer by subjecting them to any physical contact.”

    he State Senate passed the bill Wednesday that makes it felony to “harass, annoy, threaten or alarm” an on duty police officer by subjecting them to any physical contact.

    Does flipping them the bird count? I do that just about every day. No I guess I would have to poke them with my finger to become the next one of our millions of felons.

  11. The simple fact is government violence, force and coercion only exists because some people are willing to carry out this destructive, unethical and immoral behavior against their fellow man. They have lost their humanity, if they ever had it.

    • Exactly so, Chad.

      I used to pull my punches when it came to cops. I’d defend the “good” ones. But in fact, there are none such. Yes, there are cops who aren’t outright sadists or thugs; who attempt to be “fair” and so on. But the bottom line is they’re paid to enforce a panoply of bullshit – evil – laws. Most of what they do has nothing to do with protecting people from actual harm. Most of what they do has to do with enforcing the law – a very different thing. It takes a person without much of a moral compass to agree to enforce the law – vs. do what’s right.

      • Eric,

        Exactly! There is a big different between mala in se laws and mala prohibita laws. In the case of the former, one could argue that there is a compelling public interest in preventing people from committing these actions. The later, in my opinion, is about controlling the general population, whether it is simply to make the general population submit and obey or protect the current political/lawyer/bureaucratic/law enforcement/elite classes.

  12. Interesting thread.

    It’s funny/sick how hypnotized mass-man jumps to the conclusion the guy was intoxicated because the cop said he smelled like weed.

    Back in the day, while at parties, people partaking in the weed would take great care to wait for the effects to wear off before they drove home. No doubt they still smelled. However; they weren’t intoxicated. How does that fit into the nationalists view point of people like CNS?

    I mean, their driving skills weren’t impaired, but a drug test would be positive and they would be treated as if they were impaired. How does the nationalist square that? They just snort and reply, they must be scumbags? What a cop-out.

    I’ve also thought about how the guy was armed. It’s likely he wasn’t allowed/permitted by his masters to carry arms for self-defense seeing as how it looks like he’d been in prison before. So to me it seems this was more about him protecting his right to defend himself from aggressors more than anything else. Be they in jail or chasing him on the road.
    The hypnotized nationalist mass-man can go on about laws and other shit all they want, it’s just blather.

    • Perhaps Bailey was intoxicated, perhaps not. Either way, once they found evidence he had been taking drugs, the police had every right to find this out, as an intoxicated driver is a clear threat to public safety, and he had no right shoot at them for doing their jobs.Clover

      The fact that he fled the cops at high speed and shot at them proves their concern was well founded.

      • “Once they found evidence…”

        The cop claimed to “smell weed.” That’s “evidence”? Some GED dropout thug’s assertion?

        You live in a nice, cozy cocoon. A place where Officer Friendly never abuses the virtually unlimited authority he has arrogated unto himself. Where only bad people need fear cops.

        • You live in a hate-filled fantasy cocoon where the police are always corrupt and can never do anything right.


          Again, look at Bailey’s actions. He fled from the police in a vehicle and shot at them. Reasonable people don’t do such a thing when their only offense is a traffic infraction. His own actions confirmed the cops’ suspicion.

          • Yes, I hate laws that penalize people who haven’t caused harm to others.

            Again: If we had peace officers, I’d support them. I have no love at all for thugs – of any persuasion, badged or not-badged.

          • You fixate on Bailey – a black guy who probably arouses your ire because he’s a “druggie.”

            But it’s the principle at issue here that matters, Clover.

            The principle that a man – any man – has an absolute right to be left unmolested until and unless he has caused harm to others or their property.

            That’s where we differ.

            You’re a “law n’ order” type.

            I’m a human rights type.

          • “where the police are always corrupt and can never do anything right.”

            Yes, that’s what usually what happens with monopolies. Again, if you were a libertarian (which you sure as fuck are not), you’d understand that.

          • I don’t care about Bailey’s skin color or his drug habbits. I care that he was endangering the public with his wreckless driving (and possible intoxication), and willing to murder fellow human beings rather then answer for his actions.Clover

            • His “wreckless” driving… yes, indeed.

              He didn’t use a turn signal – and no one but a cop tailing him was around to see it.

              Very “wreckless” indeed.

            • Fundamentally, Clover, your complaint is that Bailey did not Submit & Obey.

              In principle, then, you believe everyone must Submit & Obey. That “the law is the law.”

              And to resist/evade “the law” justifies physical violence against the “offender.”

              Embrace your authoritarianism, Clover.

          • Your defense of Bailey proves your love of thugs.Clover

            The funny thing is, I think it’s possible Bailey himself wouldn’t defend his actions with the zeal that you are displaying. I think there is a good chance he knew it was wrong to put other drivers at risk by fleeing and it was wrong to shoot at the police. He just did it because he realized he was about to go to prison and didn’t want too, not because of principles or morals.

            • My defense is not of Bailey, per se – but you’re not bright enough to get that.

              I am defending a principle. A very important one.

              You are a textbook example of the saying, “hard cases make bad law.”

              Probably Bailey was not a model citizen. It is irrelevant to the question:

              Is it ok to have armed costumed enforcers out there holding people up at gunpoint over manufactured “offenses” that have no victim?

              You say yes.

              I say no.

          • Clover, what do cops spend the preponderance of their days doing?

            Radar-trapping “speeders,” issuing tickets for not wearing a seat belt… arresting people (and seizing their property) for possessing/consuming arbitrarily illegal “drugs.”

            These are all corrupt (abusive) actions, by definition. No victims involved; ho harm to actual persons or property. Nothing more than violations of statutes – “the law.” Man-made “offenses.” That’s all. And you support this regime.

            Cops don’t even have a legal obligation to protect your person. Were you aware of that?

            But they will mercilessly enforce “the law” – any law, every law.

            And you think that comports with Libertarian ideals.

            And that to object – and to resist – does not!

          • “Cops don’t even have a legal obligation to protect your person. Were you aware of that?”

            All they do is show up with a piece of chalk after a crime has been committed, then parade around as if they are the great protectors (like what happened in Boston and Sandhook). The really sad part is that fucking idiots like CNSClover cheer them on further shrouding them in their veiled legitimacy.

        • Eric, can you please stop repeating the lie that the cops were holding Bailey up at gunpoint over a manufactured offense? He wasn’t being held up at gunpoint. The cops did not draw their weapons until Bailey tried to murder them. And you have presented no evidence whatsoever his offense was “manufactured”. Traffic violations are quite real. Also it would be nice if you could learn the difference between a uniform and costume, but I’m sure that’s too much to ask.Clover

          And yes I do know the cops have no duty to protect any individual citizen. It doesn’t change anything I’ve said about this article at all.Clover

          I can see your case is so weak you are now resorting to strawmen. I never said the police were all saints or that they never wrongly use force. The link you provided of them beating the woman was a clear cut case of them doing that. The point remains that in THIS particular case the police did everything right. THIS is a case where the police should be commended. You could show me 50 links of the police doing something wrong and the facts of this case would not change

          When you hatefully and reflexively bash the police in cases when they are clearly in the right, it not only makes you look foolish, it undermines legitimate criticism of police abuse. The police do enough real bad things that there is no need to manufacture phony outrage over indisputably justified police action.

          • Ah, the argument from CAPSLOCK. You are WIN. Your logic IMPREGNABLE. This thread is decided, unless one dare unleash the formatting tag KRAKEN: The dreaded argument from BOLD CAPSLOCK.

          • Your quibbling is incredible, Clover.

            No, they didn’t actually have their guns drawn when they initially pulled him over – but the threat of violence was there from the moment the thugs turned on their lights and siren. It was sufficient to coerce Bailey’s compliance – to force him to pull over. Because he knew that failure to comply meant… guns drawn.

            Do you deny this?

            No interaction with a costumed enforcer is voluntary or peaceful – unless you can walk away and the thugs have no power to prevent you from doing so. Bailey could not walk (or drive) away. He was waylaid by force. The costumed enforcers initiated force.

            Over the manufactured non-crime (because no victim or harm done) of not using a turn signal. That’s what set this whole ugly chain of events in motion. It is a common occurrence. That link I posted? A case in point. Another non-crime (talking on the phone) that resulted in a vicious assault. Unfortunately, that poor woman – like so many victims of costumed thugs – had no meaningful way to defend herself. Had she tried, those sociopathic thugs would surely have killed her. Over a fucking bullshit charge of talking on her phone! And you would say she deserved it – as Bailey deserved it. For “resisting” authoritay. For disobeying “the law.”

            Your position is one of reflexive deference to “the law” – by dint of it being “the law.” A circular position that excludes any consideration of the rightness or wrongness of the law – and thus, its enforcement.

            You reverence “the law” (and those who enforce it) much more than human rights. If that were not the case, you’d agree that no man – costumed with state regalia or otherwise – has any right to interfere with another man by threatening him with violence in order to obtain his unwilling compliance with arbitrary edicts or to punish him for doing something that hasn’t caused or threatened to cause harm to other persons or property.

            And that makes you a Clover, Clover.

          • CNS: Americans such as yourself have a funny idea of what constitutes the first use of violence. The first act isn’t the first person to draw a gun or the first person to fire a gun. The first act is intrusion with the backing of violence.

            It’s no wonder americans are led to war so easily. All the government needs to do is to put another country in the position where they’ll fight back and it can claim that it was fired upon. If that doesn’t work they just make up an event.

            The first act backed up with violence is the selective enforcement of failure to signal. Unless you are willing to argue that he would have been left alone if he chose not to pull over but to continue driving normally, you have to admit this is the first act that is backed up by violence.

            If the officers were actually harmed by this act of failure to signal they could have simply noted down the plate number and informed the owner of the vehicle by mail with a court date. It was clearly a ‘beyond the stop’ fishing kind of stop. Cops don’t even bother with it otherwise.

          • Eric: “No, they didn’t actually have their guns drawn when they initially pulled him over – but the threat of violence was there from the moment the thugs turned on their lights and siren. It was sufficient to coerce Bailey’s compliance”Clover

            Doesn’t matter. The fact that they never drew their weapons until he forced them too means they did not hold him up at gunpoint. The mere “potential” for drawing weapons is not enough. Funny how you say potential for things is meaningless until the act occurs, but then don’t apply the same standard to the cops. I thought you said everyone should be treated the same.

            Eric: “No interaction with a costumed enforcer is voluntary or peaceful”

            Yep, I was right, you still can’t figure out the difference between and uniform and costume. Anyway, that’s false. If someone calls the police to report a family member has been kidnapped or property has been stolen, that’s voluntary action. Citizens routinely make voluntary calls to the police for service all the time, and then peaceful interaction ensues.

            Eric: “Over the manufactured non-crime (because no victim or harm done) of not using a turn signal.”

            It was not manufactured. He did it and the police had every right to pull him over for it. There is no inherent human right to ignore traffic laws and treat the road as your personal property, because you’re not the only driver on it. When you start acting irresponsible, you risk other drivers as well. Libertarians do not justify behavior that can harm others. This is particularly the case for driving while intoxicated. That’s no different then firing a gun in random directions in a populated area.
            Eric: “Had she tried, those sociopathic thugs would surely have killed her. Over a fucking bullshit charge of talking on her phone! And you would say she deserved it”

            Clearly you missed the part where I said that was a case of police abuse. Your selective reading strikes again. I didn’t defend the cops in that case, I just pointed out it has absolutely nothing to do with this one.

            Eric “You reverence “the law” (and those who enforce it) much more than human rights.”

            Wrong again. I simply pointed out the laws Bailey violated were legitimate and his rights were not violated in this case. He had no right to ignore traffic laws. He had no right to endanger the public even further by fleeing down the road at high speed from the police, he had no right to shoot them for performing the legitimate duties of a peace officer.

            Everything he did was a crime. not a human right. If the cops in this case were 100% libertarian and acting its principles, their actions would have been the same as you see on the tape. To hold Kevin Bailey up as a victim and paragon of libertarian ideals makes a complete mockery of the system and ideology you claim to believe in.

            • “Doesn’t matter,” Clover?

              So, when a guy who is much bigger than you, or obviously armed, “asks” you to hand over your wallet, no force is applied against you?

              You’re beyond belief.

              Yes. It’s a costume. A special outfit. You like to call it a uniform because you venerate those who wear it.

              And no, Clover, ignoring/evading/failing to obey a man-made statute is not a crime unless there was harm done, an actual victim. Not using a signal – when there’s no other traffic in the vicinity and so no possibility of any harm done – is not a “crime.” It is a violation of a statutory law, yes. But that is an entirely different thing. Just as my not wearing a seatbelt is not a crime. Just as my driving after having a few drinks – but not driving erratically – is not a crime. Just as my not wanting to hand over a large sum of money to the local thugs every year in order to continue to be “allowed” to live on my land is not a crime. Etc.

              I will try – one more time – to get the point across. Lots of “laws” in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Were those who disobeyed them – and resisted authority – criminals or victims? I realize you’re too dense to get the underlying point. You’ll warble (cue that atrocious Lee Greenwood song) that America is “different” and our laws are all righteous laws – as are those who enforce them. Cops are heroes! Obey!


              The tragic thing, if you’re sincere, is that you don’t even realize the embarrassing extent of your contradictory statements. Defending the use of violence against people who’ve harmed no one, either persons or property, is to renounce the very essence of what it means to be a Libertarian. And to embrace authoritarianism. Again, you’re not bright enough to get this. I’ll explain.

              You believe your “minimalist laws” for the “good of society” are justified – desirable. Yet even if they are (and they are not) you’ve opened the door to other laws – to limitless laws – by conceding the fundamental principle that it’s acceptable to use violence against peaceful people for reasons other than self-defense or to redress an actual wrong (that is a harm) done. Do you see?

              Why do we have seatbelt laws, Clover? Because another Clover took your ball and ran with it. If it’s ok to sic costumed enforcers on “speeders” and “no turn on right” scofflaws – not because of any harm they’ve caused but because, in theory, “someone” might cause harm – or because “someone” might hurt themselves – you have already given your approval to an endless panoply of additional laws based on exactly the same premise. Some of these laws you will not like – and may even view as an affront to your liberty. But you’ve got no principled moral argument to deploy against them. You’ve already accepted the premise. All you can do is mewl along utilitarian lines, that it’s not “efficient” or there are “better ways” – and so forth.

              Why are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments inoperative, Clover? Why are you forced to stop and submit to an interrogation/check of your “papers” at “security” (and DWI) checkpoints? You haven’t done anything, Clover. Or even given reason to suspect you may have. But because other Clovers decided that “someone” might be drunk – or a “terrorist” – you and everyone else are waylaid at gunpoint and dealt with as presumptive criminals. It’s “the law” – and if you resist… well, you know exactly what will happen.

              Why have your Second Amendment rights (your natural right to armed self defense) been transformed into a limited privilege conferred by the state – subject to terms and conditions and revocable at any time?

              Why are you forced to do business with people with whom you’d otherwise prefer not to?

              Why are you forced to buy insurance?

              Why are you forced to get permission to build “your” house on “your” land that you paid for the way others decree it ought to be built?

              Why are you forced to witness against yourself to the government (e.g., tax forms)?

              Why are you forced to pay taxes for the benefit of other people to whom you owe no moral obligation that’s enforceable at gunpoint?

              Etc. Etc.

              My point is this: If you want liberty, then you must defend liberty. Everyone’s liberty. At all times. And never countenance the use of violence except in self-defense. And accept that this entails risk – because neither human beings nor human society are perfect or perfectly good and never will be.


              Your Cloveritic society of control and coercion is not risk-free, either. People will still do bad things, people will still suffer wrongs done them.

              The difference is that violence against the innocent, the harmless and peaceful has been officialized and sanctioned – and cannot lawfully be resisted.

          • CNS you are avoiding the important question. If he had kept driving normally and not stopped for the cops, what would have happened? That is he did nothing violent, just ignored that the cops were even there. What would happen?

            You know as well as I what would have.

            Furthermore, everyone in this country is in violation of some law. That’s how the system is designed. To get anyone they want when they want. The vehicle code is filled with selectively enforced items and if a cop doesn’t spot one of those or just lie about it he can make up violations.

            I’ve been pulled over for no legal reason multiple times. Pure fishing expeditions. Sometimes the cop never says why I was pulled over. Sometimes the cop makes up a reason like ‘a similar car was used in a crime’ (really comical as this one was done when I was driving a car of a type which had disappeared from the road due to age) or sometimes they make up a law. One cop went as far as to cite a newspaper.

            The fact of the matter is this can happen to you too and I don’t think you’re going to like it much when it does. We’re all indigs* now, some people just don’t know it.

            *military slang for the population of an occupied country.

  13. I imagine LE agencies spy on their employees to test if they toe the line on “The Law” or let judgement creep into the equation. Those who put rights over “the law” are probably culled from the mob ASAP. The ones who are good Romans get to stay to collect their pension.

  14. Another thing to make. Even if one accepts that drugs should be legal (which I do), the key thing to remember is that Bailey was driving! Smoking pot in your own house is harmless, but being under the influence of drugs while driving is completely different. That puts the public at risk, just like drunk driving.Clover

    So let’s review. You can see everything the cops did was justified based on libertarian principles.

    The cops pulled Bailey over for a traffic violation: legitimate
    The cops found reason to suspect Bailey might be endangering the public by driving while under the influence: legitimate
    Bailey fled from the cops, and they pursued on grounds that someone who is under the influence and driving at high speeds is a clear threat to public safety: legitimate
    Bailey fired at the cops and they returned fire in self defense while performing legitimate police duties: legitimate

    No matter what one thinks of the cops, this a clear case where they did everything right.

      • Are you suggesting driving under the influence and tearing down the road at high speeds should be legal? What’s your point here?Clover

        • I am stating that Libertarians don’t believe in pre-emptive or generalized punishment/control based on the supposition that a generic “someone” might cause harm.

          Libertarians believe in holding individuals individually responsible for whatever harm they, specifically, cause.

          • I ask again, do you feel that driving under the influence and driving at dangerously high speeds should be legal?
            If the cops see someone standing over another person with a knife in hand, do they have to wait until that person stabs their victim before they can intervene? Is that what you would do?

            • What is “under the influence”? What is “dangerously high speed”?

              Individuals vary. Some people are marginal drivers absolutely sober. Some people are superb drivers – and still better able to control a car better than a sober marginal driver even when they have had a couple of drinks.

              Why should a person be punished merely for having an arbitrarily decreed BAC level? If his driving was unobjectionable?

              Same goes for vehicle speed. Some people are better able to control a car at 20 over the arbitrarily posted speed limit than some people are who drive 10 MPH below the posted limit. Why do you desire to punish people based not on any harm they’ve caused, but rather because they’ve transgressed against some arbitrary law?

          • So driving 140 MPH in an inner city street with a BAC of .23 is just fine? The police shouldn’t do anything until the driver runs over someone? That doesn’t work. Some standards have to be set.Clover

            What if someone was outside drunk out of his mind firing a gun in random directions? Can the police stop him immediately or do they have to wait until his bullets hits somebody before anything can be done?

            Libertarianism doesn’t mean the cops can’t take action until someone gets hurt.

            • The other day, I was out on my sport bike. There is a nice straight stretch of about 1 mile with excellent sight lines, just before my turn off. I hit 157 MPH briefly. I harmed none in the process.

              Yet I broke “the law” most egregiously. Had I been caught, I’d have been arrested, my vehicle impounded.

              For what? Whom did I harm? Where is the victim?

              Meanwhile, some half-blind old coot fails to notice the light went red 15 seconds ago, and plows into another car, totaling it. Odds are the old coot will get a minor ticket for running the light. Yet he has caused serious harm.

              Do you see how silly it is to focus not on actual harm done, but violations of arbitrary edicts?

          • Yes focus should be on the harm done, but that doesn’t mean people who engage in dangerously reckless behavior that poses a clear threat to the public get a free pass.Clover

            Yes plenty of speeders and drunk drivers don’t crash, but that doesn’t mean what they are doing isn’t a clear risk to the public that the police have every right to try and stop.

            Driving at absurdly high speeds and driving while intoxicated is like standing in the middle of the street and firing a gun in random directions. Most of the time you won’t hit anyone, but that doesn’t mean its harmless or that the cops shouldn’t do anything about it.

      • “CNS” is probably an abbreviation for “Contracted Net Snoop.” IOW, another paid (by the fedgov) hireling trolling sites like this to in an attempt to cause maximum disruption. He’s probably a colleague of Gil and Clover (assuming that these aren’t one and the same).

        Surely he didn’t REALLY think that coming here and making the claim “I am a libertarian” while spewing the raw bullshit that he did would be taken seriously. If he did, then the feds are scraping the bottom of the unemployment barrel in their quest for domestic stool pidgeons. If losers like this guy are the best they can do, those who love freedom have nothing to worry about.

        • “Contracted Net Snoop.” – ha, yup.

          When they say, “a clear risk to the public that the police have every right to try and stop.” I think of all the old people and stupid people I see driving everyday. Those people are not any different, yet the coppers and clovers don’t target them. Funny that.

          Makes you wonder. At least it does me.

          Also, a guy that does not use his turn signal is Not, “a clear risk to the public” it takes a severely warped mind to think so. Conditioned and hypnotized.

          “The real strategy of collectivism is the squashing of the mind, making it into a center of passivity and obedience, bereft of any original thought. When all people share the same imposed reality, there is no reality at all. The mind then stands only symbolically, like a black tree that has been dead for years.” …

          I think back to the times I worked on the river barges or with the guys moving heavy and large loads of steel with overhead cranes. I fully trusted the drunkard captain of the barge and the stoner guy operating the overhead crane, but when the know-nothing idiot got the controls because he could pass a drug test, well – LOOK OUT! – those guys were a menace and I couldn’t trust them like I could the guys who were often under the influence. That’s something I doubt any Clover would Ever understand.

          • So Jon Rappoport sees as Orwell wrote about in 1984.
            “When all people share the same imposed reality, there is no reality at all. The mind then stands only symbolically, like a black tree that has been dead for years.” RE:The scene of the Rally in 1984, where The People were horrified to learn they had brought the wrong signs, when the Ally and Enemy were flipped in a speech The Party was making… And no one even questioned the change, they all just ACCEPTED the alteration to reality – because their minds were controlled…

        • “Contracted Bet Snoop” – superb!

          Of course, it’s possible he’s for-real in the sense that he’s not paid to post logical absurdities such as claiming to be a Libertarian but supporting armed and costumed thugs who waylay people over technical foul infractions. He may just be confused. Or, not very bright.

        • “Surely he didn’t REALLY think that coming here and making the claim “I am a libertarian” while spewing the raw bullshit that he did would be taken seriously.”

          Well, he got his feeding. That’s what these assholes are after. This guy keeps coming back here under different names because this is where he gets fed. If all he got was a few short replies such as “FOAD”, or even no reply and a quick nuking of his initial post, he’d soon stop hijacking threads.

          He has been taken seriously and he’ll be back.

          • Hi Ed,

            Yeah, I know – you’re very probably right in re “CNS.” But I responded on the assumption that “CNS” might be a sincere, if misguided reader – and not just a troll. I have tried to reason with him. However, it’s proving impossible. Because (as you know) in order to have a reasonable discussion, one must be willing to concede factual points – such as the fact that when cops pull you over, they are using (initiating) force. As I mentioned to “CNS,” we can debate the merits of using force to stop a person for violations of statutory law that do not involve actual harm to actual persons or property. But it’s beyond debate that force is used to pull people over for violations of statutory law that involve no harm to actual persons or property – as in this case (Bailey not using his turn signal) because there were no other cars nearby ans thus, no possibility of actual harm being done.

            I’m ready to debate the rightness or wrongness (vis-a-vis Libertarian ideals especially) of using force to detain/punish people over violations of statutory laws that do not involve actual harm to actual persons or property. But “CNS” is apparently unwilling – or unable to enter into such a discussion.

            Instead, he wants to repeat, as nauseam, that armed enforcers are not using – and initiating – force when they forcibly stop a person for violating a statutory law absent a victim/harm to persons or property or even a plausible assertion of imminent risk to persons or property.

            So, rest assured: I’m done with him. If he posts along similar lines – repeating the same canards over and over and over – I’ll just delete ’em before they even appear.

            Time to move along….

          • Well, he got his feeding. That’s what these assholes are after. This guy keeps coming back here under different names because this is where he gets fed. If all he got was a few short replies such as “FOAD”, or even no reply and a quick nuking of his initial post, he’d soon stop hijacking threads.

            He has been taken seriously and he’ll be back.

            Yep, a FOAD or just an ignore will almost always drive them away. I had someone try to post a response, under an obviously (and comically) contrived identity, to an article I posted on my own blog about a year ago . The idiot was a dead giveaway as a fedsnoop in that he responded to my article by asking a completely irrelevant question about how I felt about something cops somewhere had done, a question that had nothing whatsoever to do with the article I posted. Needless to say, I didn’t bite and the guy went on IGNORE immediately.

            Nice try, asshole. They obviously didn’t make any attempt to train you to do the “job” they hired you to do (but then again, anyone who would NEED “training” for such a “job” is probably a hopelessly inappropriate candidate for any position other than street sweeper anyway).

            Again, if people like that are the best the feds can hire, we have less to worry about than we think.

        • liberranter,
          I take umbrage at your comment:
          “… the feds are scraping the bottom of the unemployment barrel in their quest for domestic stool pidgeons.”

          1. There IS no bottom.
          2. We’re talking about the Feds. See #1. Entry level is so low, Satan has to look a few miles under his feet….
          3. I doubt they’re actually hiring from the UNemployed…. I’d bet on “internal promotions.”

          • You’re almost certainly right, Jean. I stand corrected. VERY careless on my part for not seeing things in such an obvious light.

    • The cops pulled Bailey over for a traffic violation: legitimate

      He was selectively enforced upon. You know it as well as I do. A 50 year old white guy in a new BMW in the nice part of town at 5pm does not get pulled over for failure to signal 99 times out of 100 or more. But if you’re young, black, driving a beater, at it’s 1am in the ghetto…. well that’s different. And that is just how a lot of people (clovers) like it and want it to be. Even though in this comparison the BMW driver’s failure to signal actually has a impact on traffic and other people.

      As time goes on CNS, more people like you will face the sort of treatment only minorities and the poor have. It’s already started. I just watch the show as they complain in the media. It’s so different when they are selected. Suddenly it’s so unfair. When it happens to you, you’ll start to understand, maybe.

      • BrentP, just this week in Ft. Worth, black Baptist minister gets busted on a drug charge, two weeks later, “former” black Baptist minister gets busted again…for a pipe, jury still out(pending lab tests). His crime, he was stopped by police for leaving a convenience store parking lot without engaging his right turn signal. I laughed my butt off at that. How many times do I signal leaving a convenience store, never. He needs to get some new wheels since in the article, they pointed out he was driving(say it isn’t so, not a black man anyway)a 2007 Bentley. I reckon he’s wised up now and won’t be seen in that Bentley again, at least not in Ft. Worth.

        • Well, I meant the first bust was a bit over 2 weeks ago. The very sad and unsaid part of this is he would not want to be busted by black cops, not on a bet.

      • You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that it happened in this case. All we know is a guy got pulled over for a traffic violation, and then endangered the public by fleeing from the cops and shooting at them all because he didn’t want to face responsibility for what he did, or defend his actions in court.Clover

        His text said he didn’t want to go back to jail. What was he in jail for? Eric assumes it was something harmless, but we don’t know. It could have been robbery, rape or homicide. Either way, Kevin Bailey is a two-bit scumbag who brought his death upon himself. Whatever one thinks of the cops in general, the fact is that in this case they did nothing wrong.

        • Once again, you are putting the onus on the victim – Bailey – who was aggressed against by the cops. They initiated force. Bailey was merely attempting to evade them. When cornered, he attempted to defend himself against his armed pursuers.

          You are so blinded by reverence for “the law” – for authority – that you cannot see this. Rather, you side with the aggressors – with “the law.”

          That makes you many things, but not a Libertarian.

          • Bailey initiated the force. He ran from the cops and endangered everyone else on the road in doing so. He shot at them when they quite legitimately stopped him. All the force in this case was done by Bailey, even though at the point he initiated the force, he had not even been arrested yet. They had taken no force against him whatsoever when he made his move.Clover

            This is not about reverence for the law. I know there are plenty of bad laws on the books. But the specific laws Bailey broke in this case are not among them and the police had every right to enforce them all.

            You are so blinded by your hatred of the police you cannot see any cases in which they do something right, as this clearly was one. That makes you many things, but not a libertarian.

            • Bullshit.

              Bailey was driving along, harming no one. He ignored a traffic law. That’s all. He did not in any way initiate the use of force. The armed/coatumed goons did. Period. Fact. Not debatable.

              You believe that transgressing a traffic law is, ipso facto, legitimate pretext to stop peaceful citizens at gunpoint. I disagree. But that’s neither her nor there as regards the question: Who initiated the use of force?

              It was the cops.

              I do hate cops – because they are law enforcers. Not peace officers. They spend a great deal of their time hassling – and caging – people who’ve harmed no one but merely flouted some “law” or other.

              If cops confined themselves to going after people who’ve harmed other people – either persons or property – I’d be 100 percent supportive. But that’s not what they do – and you know it as well as I.

          • Bailey wasn’t shot for a traffic violation. He was shot for fleeing the cops at high speed and then shooting at them. He initiated the force, not them.Clover

            Furthermore, he wasn’t stopped at gunpoint. The cops had their guns in their holsters all the way up to the point when he shot at them. Can’t you get even the most basic facts of this case right?

            I disagree with most of what you said about the cops, but even if it was all true, it doesn’t change the fact that in THIS specific case, they did go after someone who was being harmful and who had initiated force. In this case, the facts show the cops did the right thing, and there is no way around it. Your hatred of them is preventing you from seeing the truth.

            • The cops initiated the use of force; Bailey responded defensively. That’s the facts, chief.

              You can’t argue them. Not intelligently, that is.

              You can debate the rectitude of initiating force for violating “the law” – which is another thing.

              You and I simply disagree over when it’s justified to initiate the use of physical violence against other people. You believe it’s ok to do so when a person violates some “law” – or ignores the commands/threats of those paid to enforce it. I take the position – which is the Libertarian position – that it’s only allowable to use force in self-defense, against a specific person or persons who has either harmed you or clearly will harm you if you do not defend yourself.

          • There is no way of getting around the fact that Bailey initiated the force, not the cops. He ran from them and endangered other motorists. He shot at them while their guns were still holstered. No force had been used on him until he decided the road was his personal escape route and the safety of other drivers didn’t matter.
            Under your own definition of legitimate force, the cops were justified. He initiated the force and they legitimately responded.

            • Right.

              Bailey just pulled off the road because he wanted to. Because those nice men asked him to – and he was free to say no and proceed on his way.

              No force was initiated. . .

              And you really believe this?

              If so, rational discussion with you is not possible.

              Concede the point – that the cops initiated use of force – and we can proceed to a discussion about whether they were right (ethically, in terms of human rights) to initiate the use of force – and whether Bailey had a right to resist them.

              But if you continue to insist that cops pulling people who haven’t done anything in terms of causing harm to anyone else’s person or property but merely because they’ve transgressed against some “law” doesn’t constitute initiation of use of force, you’re off the reservation – and there’s no point in continuing.

          • The act of a cop pulling someone over in this case is an implicit act of force. That is the state’s monopoly on legal violence is behind that action. Or are you going to argue that stopping for said cop is entirely voluntary with no consequences of violence for merely ignoring the cop and going about one’s business? You know, at low speed, following generally accepted procedures in traffic like in the OJ ‘chase’.

          • So you’re saying all traffic stops for violations are illegitimate and said drivers have the right to shoot the police in each case? Makes perfect sense, if your IQ is in negative numbers.
            A legitimate traffic stop for a traffic violation is not an initiation of force.

            • Can you read?

              I’ve stated – repeatedly – that all laws/enforcement thereof – that do not involve a victim, some actual harm to an actual person – are illegitimate.

              A “traffic stop” – as you attempt to benignly euphemize it – is a detainment by force. Armed goons waylaying a person. And you say this is not an initiation of force!

              And that you’re a Libertarian….

            • But this is demonstrably false.

              If I ignore a “no right on red” sign – and there is no traffic anywhere nearby and thus, no chance of my causing harm to anyone, stopping me at gunpoint is illegitimate, according to your own criteria!

              There was no traffic in the vicinity when Bailey (allegedly) failed to signal. So, again, whom did he harm? What was the basis for violating his right to travel unmolested?

        • Let me add something:

          I’m a middle-aged married white guy. I have no “record.” But I choose not to wear a seatbelt – because I figure I own myself and have every right to decide for myself. This puts me at constant risk of being hassled by armed and costumed assholes – who will threaten me with lethal violence if I do not Submit & Obey. If I tell them to fuck off and drive away, they will chase me down – run me off the road, pull me out of my vehicle at gunpoint, very possibly shoot and kill me. They will certainly do so if I attempt to defend myself in any way.

          This is ok with you?

          • Well sir, you certainly are full of yourself. You would be willing to flee the cops and endanger everyone else on the road over a petty seat belt violation and act as though they are the villains.

            If you want to make a stand over what you think is right, fine, but don’t endanger anyone else in the process. At least get out of your car and run on foot.
            Oh right, not cops, but “armed and costumed assholes”. I think that really says it all.

            • That’s right, CNS.

              And it says it all that you support armed/costumed assholes forcing grown men to wear their seatbelts – or else.

              I suppose you also favor forcing all those overweight assholes (the cops) to eat their veggies and drop the gut by exercising – or else.


              Why not?

          • I didn’t say I agreed with seat belts laws. I said you had no right to endanger the public in order to defy them. You want to make a stand on principle, fine, just don’t risk anyone else’s life while doing so. When you flee from the cops in a vehicle at high speed, it’s not just about your life anymore.
            And yes, I do agree cops should try to have a fitness routine. It’s quite important for the job. If their employer wants to make them have it as a condition of employment, no big deal.

            • “I didn’t say I agreed with seat belts laws. I said you had no right to endanger the public in order to defy them.”

              In other words: Submit & Obey. Whatever “the law” is, it must be obeyed. To disobey – to resist in any way – justifies use of force to compel obedience, in your view.

              You therefore disagree with Jefferson (and myself).

              Better risk with liberty – than safety and tyranny.

          • This guy is to busy polishing his masters’ boots with his tongue to grasp what you are talking about, Eric.

            Hey CNS, this ought to get your authoritarian collectivist control freak state worshiping panties in a whirl:

            When Should You Shoot a Cop – Larken Rose

          • Oh right, so any time you want to resist a law you think is unjust, you have the right to do anything you want to avoid arrest, no matter how minor the violation and how great the risk it is to others. If someone gets killed in order for you to avoid a seat belt ticket, tough luck for them. I’m sure that person’s family will find your principles comforting.Clover

            That’s not libertarianism. Libertarianism assets that one can do what one wants so long as their conduct is peaceful and doesn’t harm others. Once you unwillingly drag others into your scheme and risk their lives, it’s not about you anymore.

            • Sigh.

              You continue to defend “the law” – as such – and denounce evasion/resistance of any law/law enforcement as deserving of punishment.

              Look, one more time:

              There is only one law (for Libertarians): No victim, no crime. Simple, objective – clear cut. No need for Talmudic parsing and shysterism. Either the accused caused harm to someone’s person or property (a crime) or he did not. If he did not, then leave him the hell alone.

              You wrote:

              “Libertarianism assets (sic) that one can do what one wants so long as their conduct is peaceful and doesn’t harm others.” (Italics added.)

              Exactly. Precisely.

              Explain, please, how failing to signal when no other traffic is present isn’t peaceful … and how it caused harm to others… ?

              By the terms of your own statement, Bailey had the right to “do as (he) wants.” Because – wait for it – he was being peaceful and wasn’t harming anyone.

              Everything that followed was the result of the unwarranted initiation of force against Bailey by armed and costumed law enforcers.

              Had they left Bailey in peace, there would have been no car chase – no gunfight. No death.

              This not debatable. It just is.

              You can argue that it’s ok to initiate force for violations of “the law.” It’s not a Libertarian argument – but you can make it, and I’d be happy to discuss that with you.

              But I’m not going to go over and over and over this nonsense about who initiated the use of force in this case. It was the cops, period.

          • So, out of curiosity, just how long have you been calling yourself a libertarian? I don’t see any hint that you follow the philosophy at all. Saying you reject the failed War on (some) Drugs proves nothing. Plenty of Progressives reject it as well.

          • “So, out of curiosity, just how long have you been calling yourself a libertarian? I don’t see any hint that you follow the philosophy at all. ”

            Iberns, the asshat you’re responding to is what I call a libertardian, which is a variety of troll who thinks he’s impersonating a libertarian. He actually thinks he’s undercover and that everyone will assume that he’s just another libertarian making a point.

            He has a point on his head and he thinks he’s sharp. 😉

          • “Iberns, the asshat you’re responding to is what I call a libertardian”

            Ha! I’ve been burned by a troll. Hat’s off to you CNS. I’ve been doing this internet thingy for over 20 years, so it’s not easy to pull that off.

          • Nice try, but if you read what I said, you can see I pointed out that in this case,the police were justified in what they did under libertarian principles. Only an anarchist pretending to be a libertarian would argue otherwise.Clover

            • Clover,

              You’re an authoritarian collectivist because you support authority based on the collective (i.e., “society”).

              You do not support individual rights – which means you can’t claim to be a Libertarian. Not without looking very silly indeed.

              You have no problem with the exercise of random authority over individuals and the supremacy of “the law” over the rights. You’ve demonstrated this repeatedly.

              You are simply one of those people who believes some laws – and some enforcement – are ok. Even when they are demonstrably at odds with individual rights. So long as they are laws you like – such as traffic laws, for instance. Then it’s ok to have armed enforcers violate people’s rights.

          • “Only an anarchist pretending to be a libertarian would argue otherwise.”

            This statement alone pretty much proves you know nothing about the philosophy (a libertarian would understand what I mean by saying this).

          • Sorry Eric, repeating a lie more times doesn’t make it true.

            No one has the right to endanger the public by breaking reasonable traffic laws and fleeing from the cops when they legitimately pull you over for it. Preventing traffic violations is not random exersize of authority. It’s a legitimate means of protecting the public from careless or incompetent drivers. And it’s only done in response to the driver’s wrongful act.
            You still cling to the fantasy that “individual rights” is an excuse for doing anything you want no matter how much you put others at risk. That’s an anarchist line of thinking, not a libertarian one.

            The fact remains Bailey initiated the force. His actions caused a traffic stop. His actions turned it into a deadly force situation. The cops were doing nothing wrong. Under libertarian principles, they were clearly vindicated.

            • Clover,

              Here’s the deal:

              We can have a discussion about when it’s legitimate to initiate the use of force. But I will not go back and forth with you over a point that is beyond argument – whether the cops in this case initiated the use of force.

              They did, period.

              If you continue to assert the opposite – and accuse me of lying – your posts will be trashed before they appear.

              Again, I’m prepared to discuss when it’s ok to initiate force; whether anyone has the right – ever – to resist law enforcement. Those are interesting questions.

              But it’s not debatable that traffic stops absent harm to persons or property but only because “the law” has been violated by definition constitute initiation of force.

              Bailey’s alleged failure to signal involved no use of force, no threatened violence. It was merely a violation of “the law” – nothing more.

              The cops initiated the use of force by forcibly pulling Bailey over. They did not ask – and Bailey was not free to say no and proceed. He was forced to pull over.

              Simple, straightforward honest English.

              If you can’t use it, we can’t proceed.

        • I think we are agreed upon that he got pulled over for failure to signal. This is a selectively enforced violation. Cops fail to signal very frequently IME. We all know this. It’s not something that requires evidence any longer. It’s entirely what a driver looks like, what he is driving, where he is driving it and when he is driving. That’s it. Cops pick and choose who they pull over for failure to signal.

          The rest of the story we have is the cops’ story. The other side of this story can’t tell us what happened from his POV.

          Anyway my point wasn’t the rest of the story. My point is that your tune will change when you get selectively enforced upon. I know how it is to be selected upon. You clearly don’t.

      • CNS’s entire response thread could essentially be distilled down to the following statement:

        “Kevin Bailey was black, so, unless he was wearing a cop’s or soldier’s uniform (i.e., some position of trust or authoritah conferred upon him by White Amerika), then he was just a scumbag thug. What else could he possibly be? After all, aren’t 99.99999 percent of the scumbag thugs?”

        In other words, the sentiment typical of “conservative” Amerika.

    • CNS “…like standing in the middle of the street and firing a gun in random directions. Most of the time you won’t hit anyone, but that doesn’t mean its harmless or that the cops shouldn’t do anything about it.”

      What about when the cops are doing it?
      Dorner man hunt?
      Empire state shooter?

      Oh, right, costume and badge makes it OK…never mind.

    • reg_ “That puts the public at risk, just like drunk driving.” Bogus!

      Where are your facts to support that? Washington State just did a test of ‘stoned’ drivers and find a quite different result then your unsupportable assertion.

      “A handful of police officers stood nearby, keen to pick up on any telltale signs of stoned driving. To minimize dangers posed to bystanders, a driving school instructor, in the passenger’s seat, sat ready to take the wheel or stomp the brake pedal at a moment’s notice.

      The results, while entertaining, unfortunately don’t add much clarity to the question at hand. A regular smoker of marijuana tested above the legal limit to begin with, yet drove without much of a problem (at least initially). Two casual smokers also navigated the course without incident. Huffington Post

  15. This article is utter garbage, and its author is no better then the scum who was killed. I am a libertarian, and I think drugs should be legal, but that doesn’t even remotely justify anything Bailey did in this case.

    Whether or not he hurt anyone by not using his turn signal is meaningless. He committed a traffic violation and the cops had every right to pull him over for it. Drunk drivers sometimes make it home without crashing. Does that mean the police should not arrest intoxicated drivers unless they crash into someone else? The purpose of traffic violations is to prevent accidents, and it is perfectly legitimate to enforce them.

    That drugs should be legal does not bolster Bailey’s case either. He still chose to break the law. If he wants to make a stand by breaking unjust laws, then more power to him, but that doesn’t give him the right to endanger the public by fleeing down the road at high speeds or kill cops in order to do so. The police had every right to do what they were doing up to the point when he fled. They had pulled him over for a legitimate reason and were simply following up on a lead. First first time drug offense, Bailey probably would not have done any jail time. If he had a record, he might have gotten some time, but in no way does that give him the right to endanger other drivers on the road or start shooting.

    Bailey is just another two bit thug and I accept people like him will always exist, so they don’t inspire my anger the way people like Eric do. The author of this article gives libertarianism a bad name. He’s the reason why people don’t take us seriously. However “harmless” Bailey was at the start of the stop, once he ran from the cops (thus endangering all other drivers) everything changed. He transformed himself into an imminent lethal threat to society that the police had every right to remove. This was a textbook justified use of police force and every real libertarian should be able to see it.

    • Hi CNS,

      If you’re a Libertarian, then you should agree that a person who hasn’t caused any harm to anyone has a right to be left in peace. But you take the most un-Libertarian position I can conceive of: That we must Submit & Obey to authority – to arbitrary laws, and to those who enforce them. And that to attempt to evade or resist these enforcers justifies any use of force to compel us to Submit and Obey.

      Bailey was stopped initially for the non-crime of failing to signal. It’s a non-crime because he harmed no one. Then he faced imminent arrest – over the non-crime of having/having used “weed.” For which he would have been taken to jail – perhaps prison.

      And you defend all this – and style yourself a Libertarian!

      • When you look at the facts, you can see Bailey was causing harm. He broke legitimate traffic laws (people should have to use their turn signal when changing lanes). He was possibly driving under the influence of drugs. He chose to endanger the public by fleeing from the cops at high speed rather then accept responsibility for actions or defend them in court. Every act he did starting from the initial offense made him progressively a bigger threat to society. He was at fault for what he faced, and his ultimate fate, not the police.Clover

        • Bullshit.

          No other car or person was put at risk by his not signaling. He committed a technical foul infraction – of a piece with ignoring a “no right on red” sign when it’s obvious there’s no traffic within half a mile. It was an excuse to pull him over – nothing more.

          The only legitimate laws are those that conform to the non-aggression principle. If you were a Libertarian, you’d know about the NAP.

          A person who speaks in platitudes about “society” is most definitely not a Libertarian. Which is fine. But why style yourself something you’re not?

          • He committed a traffic violation. That doesn’t make him evil but that’s perfect justification for a traffic stop.

            I know about the NAP. The cops didn’t violate it, and he did. His driving endangered the public They had every right to take a dangerous driver off the street if he really was under the influence of drugs, but he chose to flee at high speeds, thus endangering the public even more, and shoot his way out of a legitimate arrest.

            The only one pretending to be a libertarian here is you. It seems you are really an anarchist.

          • It’s his type – the conditional Libertarian, the “limited government” conservative – that drives me nuts the most.

            I’ve honestly only heard about this story from you, and considering what the State normally does and how it twists things, I’m certainly going to trust a fellow libertarian, even an anarchist, over the state-controlled media.

            That said, the reality remains that an 80% ally is an 80% ally. I don’t know about this guy in particular, he doesn’t even sound particularly libertarian (Heck, some people don’t consider ME a libertarian, even though I’m essentially as libertarian as you can get without being either “Pro-choice” on abortion or being an anarchist), and he may not in reality be any kind of an ally to any degree. If an 80% ally gets something wrong, by all means, criticize their position in any way you deem necessary. That does not, however, make them an enemy.

            You have a positive opinion of Ron Paul, so I seriously doubt you despise every honest limited government constitutionalist, as after all, that is what Ron Paul is. Your problem in this case, as is mine, is that the poster in question seems to be supporting UNLIMITED government authority, not that he’s not an anarchist.

            Anarcho-capitalists are certainly libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. I see no good reason why I shouldn’t support people like you when we agree 95% of the time just because I support government existing to deal with legitimate violations of the NAP: therefore limiting their authority to police, courts, and defense, while you oppose any government existing altogether.

            Anyone who’s honestly limited government, even if we don’t agree on the details (And I put ancaps in this broad category) isn’t my enemy. Its the supporters of unlimited government, the people who will support virtually ANY act of aggression as long as the State does it that I feel are my real enemies. My real enemies are the Lindsey Grahams, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas, and the Nancy Pelosis, not Rand Pauls and the Justin Amashes and the Thomas Massies…

            Honestly, there are some things I just won’t compromise on. I won’t vote for anyone who supports war or gun control, and it would take a lot to get me to support anyone who supported greenback currency or Roe v Wade. But if we’re not willing to build any kind of coalitions, as Ron Paul has suggested doing multiple times, we aren’t going to get ANYWHERE.

            Admittedly, I don’t know where the right balance here is, but to immediately cast out anyone who doesn’t want to totally destroy 100% of the state is, in my opinion, a position that dooms us to lose even a very libertarian position.

            Heck, you’d have to throw me out of the tent if that’s the case.

            • Hi David,

              In practical terms, never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Of course I’d vote for Ron Paul (I did) or anyone approximately like him. He’s not perfect – but then, I don’t have perfect six pack abs, either. Yet I continue to do sit ups… .

              We work toward the goal – one step at a time.

        • CNS……Your problem is simple:

          You think that just because you’re “a good citizen”, and that “you have nothing to hide”, and that you “follow the law”, you think that you cannot and will not suffer any abuse at the hands of this corrupt system.

          History is full of examples of useful idiots who thought that by going along with a corrupt gang, by helping to do their bidding, that they would be safe……only to end up in the gulags right alongside those they helped to persecute.

          • It’s worse – deeper – than that.

            CNS doesn’t consider it abusive to send armed men out to detain/fine/arrest/cage – even kill – people over “violations” of law. Not because they’ve damaged property, or caused others harm. But merely – and solely – because they’ve transgressed against “the law.”

            He’s the apotheosis of the statist-collectivist-authoritarian, yet doesn’t even realize this. Because he has this bizarre idea that it’s ok to violate some people’s rights when he (and others of like mind) believe it’s justified, based on their fears about theoretical/generalized “risks,” or “costs to society” or in order to “keep us safe.” He’s too limited in brainpower to comprehend that these same rationales can be used to justify laws – and enforcement – he doesn’t like and which are an affront to his liberty. But, having conceded the principle, he’s got no real defense to put forward. He’s disarmed himself – and all of us, too.

            It’s his type – the conditional Libertarian, the “limited government” conservative – that drives me nuts the most.

          • CNS believes that he is safe in the herd, that the lions will go after someone else…

            He forgets there are more Lions than herd animals these days… Even if most of the pride is busy drooling on itself (bureaucrats), CNS sees only the OBVIOUS Lion: The male, with his big mane, basking in the sun, lying on the rock…

            He forgets that the FEMALE lions are the hunters… And they aren’t on the rock, no…

            But the female huntresses smell CNS… The smell of soiled panties carries on the savannah…

            (Geez, am I getting too graphic now?)

          • Reg_ ” “follow the law”,” That means tacit support of wars of aggression . . . corporate war, illegal acts of aggression in other sovereign nations.

            If you follow the law, you don’t resist the draft or any other social pressure put upon you to join up and support your all knowing government, which sells the illusion of bogus personal protection. That purports to ‘protect our freedoms’ when it actually has another self serving agenda. And agenda that trades lives for profit. That destroys families and viable social structures. That diminishes our national and personal treasure. That makes us vulnerable economically and physically for a very long time.

            But hey! Pat yourself on the back . . . your ‘good boy’.

    • Bailey is just another two bit thug and I accept people like him will always exist, so they don’t inspire my anger the way people like Eric do. The author of this article gives libertarianism a bad name. He’s the reason why people don’t take us seriously.

      Ahh beltway libertarianism, where people ask for a somewhat more permissive government but with all the same command and control. After all, you want control freaks to take you seriously so they’ll be just a bit more permissive in some areas.

      If you want to be taken seriously you have to offer something different and be willing to take the heat otherwise you are just either a more permissive form of the same two parties and thus lost in the crowd.

      • Like Eric, you confuse libertarianism with anarchy. Being a libertarian doesn’t mean believing all police action is illegitimate. It means believing the police should focus on things that are actually harmful to the public. Smoking pot in one’s own house is harmless. If that was what they went after Bailey for, then Eric would have a point.Clover

        But driving while under the influence of drugs is a different matter. That’s a danger to the public and the police have every right to try and stop it. Same with fleeing from the cops at high speed. Am I really the only one who realizes that prevents a serious risk to everyone else on the road?

        • Libertarians believe only peace-keeping (not “police action”) is legitimate. Keeping the peace. As opposed to enforcing arbitrary, victim-free “crimes.”

          If Bailey’s driving had resulted in an accident, then a peace officer’s services would be legitimate. Not before.

          You support controlling/punishing people before they have actually caused harm. You believe this is acceptable because it protects “society” – but it does so at the expense of individual rights. You cannot be a Libertarian and place the imagined rights of an abstract collective – “society” – over the actual rights of actual human beings.

          Your posts are consonant with one or another form of collectivism. You might be a “law and order” conservative – or a “progressive” liberal. But fundamentally, you are a collectivist and and thus, an authoritarian because collectivism is inherently authoritarian.

          Not a gratuitous insult. Just a statement of facts based on the statements you’ve already made.

          • Peacekeeping doesn’t mean doing nothing until someone gets hurt in all cases. Libertarianism still allows the police to take action when someone’s behavior presents a clear imminent risk to the public, like driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and fleeing from the cops at over 100 mph.
            I asked this question in a different post and I’ll ask it again here.

            What if someone was outside drunk out of his mind firing a gun in random directions? Can the police stop him immediately or do they have to wait until his bullets hits somebody before anything can be done?

            • You are now resorting to absurdities to try to make a point.

              I do not offer utopia. A Libertarian society would still have problems – including the problems of stupid/reckless/criminal people. Bad things would still happen.

              But – and this is key – bad things could not be done by official sanction to peaceful people. A street thug might rob you; a drunk driver might hit you. But you’d never have to worry about being hassled by armed and costumed goons for no reason beyond “it’s the law.”

              It would be necessary to produce a victim – a real actual person(s) harmed as a result of your actions – in order to justify any criminal proceeding against you. Absent a victim, no crime.

          • It is quite revealing that you still refuse to answer my question about the man firing a gun in public scenario. Can the police stop him or not?Clover

            Again, a libertarian society doesn’t mean no police (or peacekeeping if that’s what you want to call it) action until someone gets hurt. They can still take action when they see an imminent and deadly risk to the public based on someone’s actions.

            • Christ on a corndog!

              If someone points a lethal weapon at others and fires, that is justification for defensive action.

              Such a person has initiated violence. They “started it.”

              Ignoring a traffic law is not initiating violence. No one has been harmed. Attempting to get away from armed thugs who have initiated violence against you is not initiating violence. You are exercising your natural right to defend yourself against the initiation of aggression.

          • Read the scenario I presented again. I didn’t say he was pointing a gun at anyone. I presented a case of a man in public in a populated area firing a gun at total random. He’s not aiming at anyone in particular. Just shooting in random directions.Clover

            Can the police stop him or do they have to wait until someone gets hit?

            Ignoring a traffic law is not force, but neither is the police pulling someone over and writing them a ticket for it. If the cops beat someone up for a traffic violation, then it makes sense to criticize them. But simply writing a ticket for a violation is legitimate response.

            Again, in this case the cops had not taken any force against Bailey before he initiated force against them, and the other drivers on the road by fleeing at high speeds. At that point they had every right to respond.

            • Lawsee!

              A gun is a lethal weapon. To fire at random in any direction where people are present is an aggressively violent act.

              It’s also a silly straw man argument – an extremely improbable “what if” scenario intended to delegitimize another action much less extreme, that does not necessarily entail the threat of lethal violence initated against others (such as failing to signal a lane change).

              “Ignoring a traffic law is not force, but neither is the police pulling someone over and writing them a ticket for it

              Italics added.

              Excuse me?

              You mean if I ignore their lights and siren they will not run me down, then pull me out of my car at gunpoint? They are not using force against me?

              You’re a good law n’ order “conservative,” CNS. But about as Libertarian as Rush Limbaugh.

          • “What if someone was outside drunk out of his mind firing a gun in random directions? Can the police stop him immediately or do they have to wait until his bullets hits somebody before anything can be done?”

            Sure they would, but why would you wait for the police? Shoot him yourself. I would.

          • CNS, better let me run out of ammo. And if you can’t go that, just ask yourself, self, do I really want to die tootsweet? If that answer is no, just let me get my yaya’s out, never hurt anybody to date, mid-sixties and that’s a pretty good record since I’ve logged a couple million miles on the road and the only wreck was due to GM’s great ABS,,,,and I was sober to a disgusting degree. Geez, dicks like you. I absolutely hate to be sober. I’ve spent a lost lifetime being disgustingly sober….and for what. I do much better with a buzz going. I suppose you just must not realize how it is to see everything out in front of you, including intersecting traffic and to actually look into people’s eyes who might turn in front of you. I know people have said You actually looked people in the eyes? Damn right, I make a point of it Nobody will turn in front of you who locks eyes with you, better for both of us. The only people I’ve had turn into my lane were not seeing, maybe turned my way but nobody home. Been There Done That too damned many hundreds of thousands of times. It’s sorta nice to be in that crazy, fast city traffic you can’t screw up in cause those people are having to pay attention, no joke.

          • lberns1, pales ales ok but I would ask for something darker, not necessarily stronger. Still, I love it all, fermentation rules. ha ha

          • Pale Ale perhaps, but the difference is that this beer doesn’t use hops, it uses heather. It really is a nice diversion from the flood of IPAs out there, and has become one of my favorites.

          • lberns1, I see what you mean. It’s not entirely lost on me, just can’t afford it even if I could find it(not here, or anywhere within a 100 miles or more). It does sound excellent from the description.

        • You are arguing statist principles. All you want is a more permissive form of government, not freedom. That does not make you a libertarian.

          A libertarian prefers the risks of freedom over the security of the state. It’s clear you prefer the security of the state over the risks of freedom. Also the libertarian sees the state offering a false security much if not all the time.

  16. Comrades that boring old white guy 4th amendment stuff is obsolete in a glorious rainbow collective utopia. Now type happy thoughts in your computer so No Such Agency doesn’t get too excited and label you a terry-ist. All of this is being done by that evil Bushitler while Dear Leader Messiah is busy lowering the ocean levels and perfecting the glorious rainbow hopetopia. To each according to his needs, workers of the world unite.

  17. opening fire on the modern day SS…never ends good. but people shouldn’t have to live in such a state of terror because they committed a victimless crime. his mom must be a mess.

    • opening fire on the modern day SS…never ends good.

      That statement cuts both ways. It’s true that such an act never ends well for us “Mere Mundanes,” but in at least 75 percent of such cases (maybe even more) it doesn’t end well for the swine either. I’m sure that more than a few of us MMs who have opened up on swine in the past have known that it would be the last thing we would ever do. But more than a few of us also knew that we were justified in doing so and that we’d at least die with good consciences knowing that we were doing the right thing (i.e., defending ourselves against unlawful aggressive violence). I doubt the same could be said for most swine who find themselves in the same situation and on the wrong end of a MM’s bullet. The point is that at some point in the very near future it’s going to dawn on even the densest of these porcine thugs that their job is one of rapidly diminishing returns. This will especially become painfully obvious once the Fed-issued scrip in which they (and the rest of us) are paid by their masters becomes worthless green-colored ass-wipe.

    • The balance of your equation can be dramatically altered with but a little planning. Yes, most ‘firing’ goes poorly for us mundanes. But this because we are on the sudden defensive, attacked by the SS unexpectedly in our car or in our home and we are not trained to respond quickly. We must all prepare ourselves mentally and physically to turn the proverbial table. 1) Be prepared/aware. Begin to develop a bit of that situational awareness that our Nordic forefathers held when hunting the forests or working the fields. 2) Lose the inhibitions of being the aggressor. The accost us in our cars, homes, with our families and little children at play. Why, oh why, may we not return the favour?

      We must…

      Then you will see that statistic shift in our favour.

      …Now if I can only develop a drone identification and remediation system……..


  18. I don’t countenance Bailey’s firing on the cops.

    Why? If you’d said, “I don’t recommend someone like Bailey firing on the cops,” I’d agree: it’s usually suicide, as it was in this case.

    But from a moral standpoint, Bailey was perfectly justified. These cops were enforcing an illegitimate law, which makes them criminals. The only reason not to stop a criminal who is backed by deadly force is practical, not moral.

    I’m not calling for people to shoot cops. I’m calling for cops to stop enforcing bullshit laws, or face the consequences.

    • More consequences, from better shots than the cops are. I like it.

      Cops are like pit bulls: Loyal to their master (the state) to a fault. Doesn’t matter if master is right or wrong, he’s Master.

      They are all but rabid; treat them as such.
      You see a rabid dog, you shoot it to contain the illness.

  19. Welcome one and all to the Police State. I live in a rural part of a rural state and am still occasionally harassed by deputies. The offenses: DAM–Driving After Midnight, which my job requires. I never get pulled over or ticketed because I’m never doing anything wrong. But it’s still unnerving at one or two in the morning to see sheriff deputies in their squad cars doing “turnarounds” (their term) on the highway in order to tail me, or overtake me at speeds I estimate to be 80-90 mph (on 55 mph roads).

    I usually call the sheriff’s department after such incidents. What I get is a load of crap, with the rare confession that some of the officers are sort of gung-ho or zealous.

    It ain’t just the big city anymore. Officer Harass Yer Ass is everywhere now.

  20. Drew Curtis, proprietor of Fark,

    “I don’t care what anyone says, the masses are morons. You can’t count on them to pick good stuff. Just check out Network TV to see what the masses want for entertainment. There’s certainly a place for that kind of thing but it’s not on Fark. The ‘wisdom of the crowds’ is the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in my life. Crowds are dumb. It takes people to move crowds in the right direction, crowds by themselves just stand around and mutter.”

    I’m registered and will be able to post there starting 1:00 am tomorrow EST. I’ll try to show them whippersnappers what they should be doing at their age.

    Atomized dronechildren assimilate Vegas celebrate

    Vegas Has Exact Replica of Hitler’s Bar: Hofbräuhaus

    Danke, Frau kann Ich habe ein anderes?

    Eins, zwei, g’suffa!

    • Morning, Tor!

      As you and Brent and others have observed, all the critics miss the point – leaving people free to choose. That’s all.

      It’s so frustrating trying to break through the three-inch-thick skulls of government snugglers. How do they get “Eric wants everyone to drive deathtraps!” out of that article?

      It just amazes me.

      • Men must have sufficient freedom, or they will perish. Perhaps a diagram will help.

        Law of Closure – [Gestalt Psych Diagram]

        Imagine in this diagram the three dots represent a Father, a Mother, and a Son. The upward pointing black triangle is the walls of their home.

        Today is tax collection day. The government collects its tithe of flesh from the people and and bricks from the walls of their property. The government is the perceived downward pointing white triangle.

        The family and property are now in peril, they will need to close each others wounds and rebuild the borders of their property at once, or they will perish.

        The family’s foolish neighbor sees only the negative space white triangle and is blind to their mutilated body and property. He was subject to no such tithe. He thinks the white triangle is neat, and is unable to perceive that his neighbors might die.

        He only knows the family has so far survived each time and repaired their damage. Tomorrow the governent will the neighbor some flesh for food and build him a small structure with the a few of the bricks they have taken. He sees government as his provider.

        For the family and the neighbor, it is a dire situation. Also, if the family dies, the neighbor will no longer have a way to survive. Over time, both the family and the neighbor are becoming poorer, since the government is taking resources away from their location.

        Continuing to support the government is not in the family or the neighbor’s best interests, it may even be deadly for the them. Their are numerous new arrangements they could make, to their mutual benefit.

    • Ha! I didn’t receive this treatment the last time I was at the Hofbrau. Und eine huebsche Kellnerin! Also, is the Cafe Heidelberg still open?


  21. I am tempted to forgive this one since I can’t watch the video – Conditions are: No one knew the child was inside; the man just ran for the house; the cops just responded and didn’t find out what was going on until it was too late.

    Anything different from those? The cops should be burned alive.

    As it is, it STILL stands as excessive force. He had a REASON to run into a burning house, and people do it for stupid things (money, for instance, though physically irreplacable, can be eanred in future, too), but to tase him? Seems excessive regardless.
    And the exceptions are likely NOT what happened.

    We are at war people, whether it’s hot or cold, we’re in a war zone. The enemy is still the enemy, even if he’s not shooting at you at the moment.

    So, time to fry ’em. 😛 Someone will get the message, eventually. Or we’ll run out of enemy.

    • I’m not.

      A man has every right to run into a burning house if that’s his wish. Paid goons certainly have no right to interpose themselves and prevent him from doing so. I chafe at the constant assertion of ownership rights in other people.

      • Eric, don’t you know that the Hero Hogs (good one, Tor) are merely asserting the state’s equitable interest in the father’s being?

      • I don’t think this comes form ownership, per se – it POTENTIALLY could come from best of intentions. OTOH, if the roof didn’t fall in THE VERY SECOND he was stopped from entering the house – Meaning, PRECISELY when someone got in his way, or before, meaning there was essentially no chance to save the infant and it would just be suicide; NOT after that initial contact, which means anything other than grabbing him and the immediate instant where that happened – anything beyond is just brutality – then if the house remained standing, then those officers ARE guilty, and should be punished for murder, assault, and attempted murder.

        See, the flip side is, you end up with people who are inhuman in a different way: complete apathy. You want to kill yourself? Fine! (No terminal illness; no financial ruin; Not just an over-emotional response.) While I don’t see a reason for suicide to be illegal, my mind would want there to be a logical reason to exist. Saving a life? Makes sense. Saving a corpse? Not so much. Which is why if there was any hope of rescuing the infant, the police had NO legitimate reason to get in the way, but it would make sense to intervene if as suggested, the roof was already caving in.
        And it still doesn’t excuse the brutality, regardless. If the roof fell in, and the father was willing to fight the police effectively, potentially taking a weaopon off them? Let him go – he’ll need to re-evaluate, but he’s got the guts, give him that. And stay out of his way, but stand by to help if he comes back out.

        Please keep in mind, I’m behind a firewall, so some of this is just supposition and what if.
        I’m not looking to assert ownership of others – but we DO lock up the insane, even those only temporarily nuts. (I don’t know if the temporary comitment ever gets removed, though. THAT could be a problem, to discuss another time.)

        • I’m not looking to assert ownership of others – but we DO lock up the insane, even those only temporarily nuts.

          Unfortunately “we” lock up many people who are only slightly odd, in the view of some other people (who may themselves be slightly odd). Thomas Szasz has written dozens of books on the subject.

          I would argue that any imposition against another absent an actual crime having been committed, is wrong.

          • Absolutely.

            The old standard was expressed thusly:

            “He ain’t hurtin’ no one… so leave him alone.”

            Being odd – eccentric – is not sufficient warrant to kidnap/cage someone. But that’s where we are.

            Just wait until they – the PTB – declaim that anyone who doesn’t support the government is “sick” … and requires “care.”

          • Yes, you are corrrect. We lock up SANE people as well as the looney.

            Eccentric shouldn’t be a problem. Weird shouldn’t be a problem. Edgar J Hoover was a flamboyant trannie, as I recall… Just as one example.
            He was not locked up, of course…

            I can’t see enough to make a GOOD judgement here, behind company policies. I’d need to get to this from home.
            but something like this? At most, you just restrain the individual from running into a certain-death situation for NO gain. Hence the roof concept. Absent such incident, if he wants to run back in, LET HIM. If the building’s collapsing, maybe not – odds are he can’t accomplish his goal anyway, and you get two deaths instead of one. The assumption is, the one death has already happened, why compound it?

            The interesting thing to use as counter-point is our collective “appeal to authority” of fire fighters: “Leave it to the professionals.” Just like cops, when sconds count… Only minutes (if you’re lucky) away.

            We (society) PAY firefighters, but we pepper spray, taze, and arrest those who would act to do similar or identical actions sans the safety equipment (hence higher risk). THAT would seem to me to be asserting ownership over a person.

            Maybe to clairfy my stance need something very different:
            Imagine the child in a guillotine. Even if the place is wired to explode: BEFORE the blade drops, no one should interfere with you going to save the child. Even if the blade is dropping, stay out of the way.
            Once the blade HAS dropped, and the infant is dead – THEN keep the person from going up there and getting blown up in the explosion that will follow.

            [Sorry, can’t come up with a reasonable analogy. And it’s seconds, so it’s easy to second-guess from safety, and “it’s not my child.” ]

  22. Hard to believe, but the Hero Hogs have managed wallow and root themselves to an even lower low in San Antonio.

    San Antonio Cops taser man for trying to save his infant son. His son died in a house fire.

    Dutch Engineers Lays Out Our Grim Near Future

    81% of Protesting Turks Self-Identify as Libertarians

  23. God Bless You Bailey! I was you, except more lucky. Cops are pieces of shit and the powers that be need these pieces in place for the master plan. May all cops burn in hell!

    • If: Thing 1 => Thing Another Then=> Next If Until: Rapture

      The pigs killed Jesus. Then the pigs tricked the Christians into thinking it is okay to be Cannibals and eat pork, yet still be disciples of Jesus, a devout kosher observant Jew.

      The Cruci-fiction of Yeshu (AKA as Hay-Zoos)

      Come on Yanks, stop passively letting argument A265 always proceed to argument A266 as per Zionist-Romanist-Catholicist-Banksterist-Socialist-Mercantilist-Nationalist master plan alpha.

      It’s infuriating, listening to Americans describe and execute intricate complex tasks and then five seconds later hear them slavishly bleat: “Brawndo is what plants crave, it’s the quicker picker upper, it’s not like polluted Chinese high-tariff lead-infested garbage toilet papertowels you get from Walmart, et. cetera, ad. nauseum, hee-haw, hee-haw, neigh-neigh-neigh-neigh whinnneeeeeey!!!”

      Any of You Blaspheme Pope Francis And I’ll Kill Ya

      – The mafiosos call me Psycho. Any of you’s Homos touch my Blue Laws, and I’ll Kill Ya!

      • Save Us From Those Who Would Save Us – Hell

        I find it hard to see that, in this modern age, so many people, are easily outraged. They shouldn’t be such narrow-minded fools! I believe that puritans have more then had their say, and I for one am bored with all their rules.

        I’m sick and tired, of people telling me what to do!
        Self-appointed guardians, no better than me or you!
        They make the barriers, and we must break them down! We must ensure they’re stopped before-
        they get a proper foothold in your mind! They’ll conscript your conscience, they’ll make you bow and cower! So watch your step, they’re never far behind!

        – – – – –
        Sorry, stage 3 dementia is now complete. Here is the
        Francis/Psycho Meeting Fellow Soldiers That Belongs to the Previous Rant. From the Reitman-Ramis-Goldberg-Blum Movie “Stripes”.

        NSFW: Burn Testing of Police Officers

      • The pigs killed Jesus. Then the pigs tricked the Christians into thinking it is okay to be Cannibals and eat pork, yet still be disciples of Jesus, a devout kosher observant Jew.

        But (according to a Jew I know, who may well not speak for all Jews on this), Jews are allowed to eat pork – under the conditions of accomplished Tikkun Olam that will prevail after the coming of the Messiah; as he put it, when you see Rabbi Schneerson eating a ham sandwich, you will know the Messiah has come. If Christians had followed that kosher rule about eating pork, it would have been implicitly conceding that we did not have faith in Jesus being the Messiah – so there is no contradiction or inconsistency in our disregarding it, but rather an affirmation of faith.

        • Very interesting. Tikkun olam (Hebrew: תיקון עולם‎) is a Hebrew totalitarian concept that has jumped the shark in the Christian & Islamic versions of Judaism into meaning “repairing and healing the world” whether the individuals in question want it or not.

          Should a pious man shipwreck on a previously unknown remote Pacific Island. One populated by illliterate naked primal men and women doing nothing to produce surplus wealth and advance. It is his solemn shared responsibility to alert the nearest Borg authorities immediately.

          Some nation or institution must assimilate these lazy non-believers at once. The Torah, the Talmud, the Seven Laws of Noah, these are the things that matter, not individual human beings, mocking the Creator by simply enjoying his creation without intellectual cognizance.

          This Clover mindset of Jews came about because for many centuries Jews were forbidden certain occupations and labors. As a consequence of limited livelihoods, many are physically inferior and fairly incapable of sustained robust industry.

          In their mutilated diminished state, they no longer seek to heal, repair and transform the world with their own two hands like a carpenter.
          There natural inclinations are short-circuited, much like the Cage of Five Monkeys.

          The Cage of the Five Monkeys

          Jews have over-specialized and now rely on mentally subjugated client tribes to do the heavy lifting and to strong arm ordinary people into doing their dirty work so that they can bring about their incorrect interpretation of their own Holy Scriptures.

          The elevation of the Bishop of Rome into the Pope and has a similar history of physical and mental disfigurements.

          I never saw a priest holding a hammer or a nun sweeping a floor. They are all under cruel systems of denial that doesn’t allow them to be functional self-sufficient human beings. Every answer comes from a book, or from a sermon.

          It is always some non-priest who provides the sweat of the brow, and flexes his muscles and exerts himself to make life possible in this world of scarcity and environmental hostility to largely incapable bipedal swine-like human race.

          – – – – –
          Christianities Inverted Ideas of Kosher

          How can it be we never eat dogs or cats which have the mental age of a 2 year old human, yet have no qualms about eating pigs, who are curious and insightful animals with intelligence beyond that of an average 3-year-old human child.

          Pigs are social, playful, protective animals who bond with each other, make beds, relax in the sun, and cool off in the mud. In many ways, their behavior is closer to human behavior than the other great apes.

          Also in regards to cleanliness, Christian nations have gone so far overboard as to sterilize and now poison their environments in a rabid rush to misinterpret what it means to live kosher, germ free, and hygenically. Western Christians have even become alergic to the entire earth and all of its creatures.

    • Burn in Hell
      by Twisted Sister

      Take a good look in your heart, tell me what do you see
      It’s black and it’s dark, now is that how you want it to be?
      It’s up to you, what you do will decide your own fate
      Make your choice now for tomorrow may be far too late
      And then you’ll burn in hell

    • Cops are pieces of shit

      I’ve actually concluded that such a comparison is an insult to excrement. But since I can’t think of anything lower (except maybe some heinous disease), I guess it will have to suffice.

  24. With Nazional Sozialists, one thing always leads to another.

    Good Evening Fräulein – Indiana Jones

    -Good evening Fräulein
    =Bars closed!
    -We are, ha ah haha ahhh, we are heh, not thirsty.
    =What do you want?
    -The same thing your friend Dr. Jones wanted. Surely he told you there would be other interested parties?

    I’ll Stop the World And Melt the Nazis With You

  25. Now, with the Supreme Court’s holding Monday in King v. Maryland, there will be even more of an incentive for motorists to attempt to evade the po-po, thereby triggering more high speed chases resulting in the all to foreseeable “collateral damage”.

  26. Great post Eric, as usual. The worst brainwashing or manipulation in world history does not represent Nazi Germany or the Stalinist Soviet Union, but right here in the United States. I have both traveled around the world and have lived overseas, and I have never seen the foreign locals put a flag that represents a state entity on their home doorposts, on their car antennas, or on their car back bumpers. Eventually the costumed donut gangs of the state will come for the ‘law abiding citizens’ too.

    The ignorant that faithfully watch the US corporate media don’t believe so, but the state will do it. All tyrannies in world history end up this way, and especially the sociopaths in power right now. They look at all weak kneed citizens as potential victims. Some good examples are the police, DHS roadblocks and checkpoints now found along our public roads, and this especially true with current DUI laws.

    The federal government now wants the states to adopt the .05 percentage for all DUI arrests. I live in a small city out west and I have seen respectable businesspeople in town now getting DUI charges. The cops used to just wait for the drunks leaving the bars around closing time, but DUI laws are so Constitution free and a great extortion racket for the local states that the police target everyone these days driving at certain hours of the night, and especially on Friday and Saturday nights. I can’t drive at those times anymore due to the fear of dealing with state criminals. Even my small city out west has a SWAT team and armored military vehicles!

    Like you have stated before, we will have to wait until we have a sizable minority that is willing to stand up to despotism – so guys like Kevin are not just one man combatants anymore.

    • Well said, Refco Lawrence. Citizens in most developed nations, while having also been mostly assimilated by their Borg Powers That Be, mostly go about their lives trying not to think about it or participate any more than they are forced to.

      Not American Citizens. We delusionally claim we have not been assimilated. Yet our singular purpose is to live our lives in service of better ways and means to perfect and propagate our National Borg Cube.

      Always, we salute and stand up next to our proud Borg Leaders, all of working for a universal goal of creating a single unified more perfect Borg Cube. A single Cube Vision that seeks opportunities for more perfect unions and ways to ensure domestic tranquility and prosperity. A grand Borg Cube Scheme with a mission of peace for the entire Universe.

      We build Borg Cubes that tell us what to eat, what to think, what to dream about. Borg Cubes with more realistic production values, and higher definition. An interconnected super-internet of more efficient Cubes. More controlling and technologically superior Cubes, more real than life itself.

      Americans have greatly surpassed the Soviet Russian doll collectives, or the Chinese Great Wall collectives of human Cubism.

      Americans are the lone Borg Cube World Superpower. Human life as other nations have known it has ended. All will be assimilated. All will service the United Nations Borg Collective and add their distinctive biological and cultural diversity to our own. Any resistance or attempts to maintain distinct sovereign individuality is futile.

    • “we will have to wait until we have a sizable minority that is willing to stand up to despotism”

      There are ways to throw a wrench into the state’s mechanisms without resorting to violence (not that you are suggesting such action, of course)

      From Bad Quaker Dot Com:

      A series on taking effective action with a defined purpose, while rejecting civil disobedience and embracing the Zero Aggression Principle.

      0383 pc318 Beyond Civil Disobedience Part 1

      0387 pc322 Beyond Civil Disobedience Part 2

      0388 pc323 Beyond Civil Disobedience Part 3

    • Funny that you can blow a 0.03 after eating DINNER ROLLS. (No alcohol consumed.)

      We’re going to get to Judge Dredd state sooner than I thought.

      • You laugh now. Wait until they start deploying the fartylizers:
        “We know that smell is yours Winston Smith, our security troops have aerosol DNA scanning technology. That’s a $20,000 fine. Also, our scans detect partially digested animal proteins, you are charged with Capital Offense Carnivorism and Felony Animal Rights Violation, you have the right to choose the Anal Cavity Probe we use in our investigation. Do you understand your right as I have read it to you?

        • Tor, currently in Tx. Are you wonna them commie vegans? In the near future, Comrade, we detect high levels of pork and beef in your diet, not to mention venison, fowl and several vermin. What do you have to say in your defense? Yum Yum…..

          • I am craving open pit smoked freshly tasered hero bacon jerky, it’s quite delicious, when you can get some.

            Eight Rules of Fight Club

  27. Like all of history there will be a tipping point. A crime committed by the state so outrageous that it triggers open rebellion. With each passing day and each passing crime I can’t help but feel that we are fast approaching that point. How it will play out or even when it will occur is well outside my abilities to future cast but I suspect it will start with states spinning out of the federal union.

    • Wishful thinking. There are too many clovers and sheeple in the general population who are unable to process the emotion of outrage over acts of tyranny any more…unless that act of tyranny is committed by a republican. Over the past 40 years, the vast majority of the American population has gone to public schools where they have been conditioned by gov’t employees to blindly accept any actions by TPTB (as long as TPTB are democrats). We are seeing the effects of hundreds of millions of low information voters who get their news from TMZ, Colbert Report, & Jon Stewart, and Ms.NBC and all their opinions are formed pretty much just from watching those channels. There are just not enough of us left who are capable of independent thought anymore to make a difference. And if you try to engage these bed wetting liberals with any level of intelligent discussion that goes against what “facts” they’ve been spoon-fed from the media and gov’t schools since their diaper years, you will be met with retorts of racist (Uncle Tom if you happen to be black). If you want to see just how far we’ve devolved as a society just in the past 10 years, all you need to do is go on twitter or find any political discussion page on facebook or read some of the shit that the people at report. We are living in a country where the majority of the population doesn’t give a rats ass about anything anymore except who’s fucking who in hollywood and when their next direct deposit is scheduled for their EBT card…just as long as the benefits keep coming, their 0bamaphone has signal, and the HNIC keeps promising to raise taxes on those evil rich people they are happy. And although I wish otherwise, I don’t ever see an armed revolution by the non-brainwashed population having any effect with our 2nd amendment rights basically having been stripped down to the point where the average citizen’s extent of firepower protection is limited to handguns and shotguns while our gov’t has bunker busting bombs and drones at their disposal, not to mention all the other weaponry that we aren’t even aware of.

      I’m just fortunate to be living on borrowed time and will likely be gone from this planet long before it gets to this.

      • Exactly.

        All these “optimists” that claim “god” (of course this is their version of god, anyone who believes differently is “wrong”) is the savior for all hope are a bunch of dumbass sheep. Those screaming kids who were getting ass-fucked by Catholic priests…where was your god then?

        Open your fucking eyes. If you can’t go to the grocery store (or just any simplistic public place) and meet a majority of like minded people, then you should take that as “we” are completely fucked.

        Have fun making up excuses in your head to think otherwise…

        • Pinball wizard blames the pinball machine manufacturer for the error of the day in a game of free will. ?

          Just because we don’t see the rhyme, doesn’t mean the reason is void. ?

          “we” are NOT completely fucked until the fat lady sings. We may very well be freaking doomed, however; we reserve the right to struggle and effect change.

          Sometimes,…things change. Even things the majority holds true and dear. Consider this: even a loyal dog stops going to its master when he calls if the dog gets kicked long enough.

    • I’d like to agree, Matt, but how much worse does it have to get then Kent State? That was 40 years ago and we have a much larger and even more violent and intrusive police state today than we ever had.

      The real culprit is the government indoctrination centers that pump out drug-addicted automatons who know nothing more than how to obey the state. Any chance we have relies on the successful elimination of public education. Anything else will get only short-term relief at best.

      • I’d argue that Waco was worse than Kent State.
        The Sheeple did F*ck-all following Waco.
        And Ruby Ridge.

        The progression has been obvious to all but those unwilling to see – which is, I concede, just about EVERYBODY.
        And government indoctrination HAS gotten worse since I was in school, but…. The newer ones? They check out. GF’s daughter proved that, she checked out about 5 minutes into first grade or so, I’m told. (She just graduated HS, and it’s OBVIOUS how “checked-out” she is. She makes a sloth look energetic, and a fruitfly look educated. she likes it that way…)

    • As others have stated, here and elsewhere, this is exactly what TPTB want to see, as it will give them the excuse they are looking for to commit genocide domestically. However, it will not be as easy as they think. It will, I predict, become EXTREMELY dangerous to be any kind of government stooge, armed or otherwise. Imagine having to watch your back 24/7, knowing that society at large has finally come to see you as the murderous bully you’ve always been and is ready to treat you with the lethal contempt you’ve always deserved.

      If I were a cop or an active duty military person right now, I’d seriously be considering a career change.

  28. China-based expat here.

    Americans are quick to get their knees-jerking whenever they talk about China. But, I tells ya what for…China’s police are boy scouts in comparison to the Jack-booted thugs that patrol America’s streets looking for people to oppress and kill over minor offenses.

    A terrific feature of television new broadcasts from provincial level broadcasters in the PRC is the coverage of bizarre incidents between the police and citizens. In many instances, as a reporter’s camera is rolling, the police stop someone for driving erratically, or with counterfeit license plates, or for being drunker than anyone has the right to be. The stopped person always seems to object. Obscenities are hurled at the cops. Sometimes the citizen throws a punch or two at the cop.

    And what does the blue-uniformed unarmed, non-tazer carrying Chinese cop do? He manages to subdue the offender with words or the help of one other unarmed, non-tazer carrying cop without resort to excessive force.

    No one dies.

    Seen confrontations myself on the streets of China that end in a similar fashion.

    Now compare all that to what happens in the good ole USA where the pigs are armed to the teeth, outfitted in battle-gear, and require a 50 man battalion to take down a granny who failed to signal a lane change.

    When will Americans finally wake up to the fact that they are all living in a prison?

    • I’m glad to hear that Laowai. I’m also glad to hear of China’s newfound economic freedoms, and its advanced media and entertainment system. My concern is how have all the rural nobodies who used to live in peaceful obscurity and with minimal state interference fared under China’s new prosperity?

      There would seem to be no free lunch available regardless of one’s geographic locale.

      • Parasitism is endemic to anture. Early lifeforms (Ie, un-evolved) were parasites – possibly even to the Mitochondria inside our cells! They may be a parasite that learned how to have a truly symbiotic (both sides benefit) relationship with the host.

        Unlike politicians, who have learned more and more how to be like tapeworms or hagfish.
        Geography doesn’t determine it, though, no.

        • Gauche to respond to myself, maybe, but – I realized I was insulting hagfish.
          Politicians have no backbones, they’re invertebrates…. Sorry, fishy friend!

  29. If we somehow manage to reclaim our liberty, that cover of “Newsweek” proclaiming the Police State to be America’s “New Way of Life” will be in every history book as future generations are taught how Americans were slowly stripped of their Rights, until the day they woke up and realized they had been the frog slowly boiled in the pot.

    • In my view, cloverism manifests itself in encounters by and between individuals and large, non-governmental, institutions, including large commercial entities.

      Take banks. Some time after the passage of the Patriot Act, the Banks of America and many other depositories began requiring their customers to remove their sunglasses in order to conduct business. Some banks, like Citizens Bank, insist that their customers remove their sunglasses, even if the only business the customer is transacting is depositing a check.

      How do you think the typical clover reacts to this requirement? Do you envision Clover vociferously objecting to such a policy? Do you see Clover demanding to see the branch manager? Can you fathom Clover, if he were waiting in line, chiming in and offering his support to another person who was protesting the policy?

      I think we know how Clover would act.

      • It would be interesting to see the response when they forced a blind person to remove their glasses, or if a blind person were injured by police, who attacked the “terrorist” who wouldn’t remove his sunglasses…
        Would it be a discrimination case? (As well as the outright “assault” charge that would of course be dismissed, as “any reaonable person would know that you must take off your sunglasses when walking into a bank” and “Every reasonable person would attack a possible terrorist”, and “every reasonable person would assume a person wearing sunglasses inside is a terrorist.” Then there’s the whole “qualified immunity” bit that would cover anything up to, and maybe including, the death of said blind person.)

        I’m failing to see how we have anything different from a “kindler, gentler USSR.” Well, I’ve got “kinder, gentler, machine-gun hand” waiting… 😛

        Sad thing is, i’m not sure it’s hyperbole any more – that might be the ONLY solution. 🙁

        • I’m failing to see how we have anything different from a “kindler, gentler USSR.”

          Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see the “kinder, gentler” aspect of it at all.

          • Well, they don’t just disappear people in the night – yet.
            But really, I just had the song “Rockin’ In The Free World” ringing in my ears….

            [ From: ]

            Rockin’ In The Free World

            There are colours on the street
            Red, white and blue
            People shufflin’ their feet
            People sleepin’ in their shoes

            But there’s a warnin’ sign on the road ahead

            There’s a lot of people sayin’ we’d be better off dead

            Don’t feel like Satan but I am to them

            So I try to forget it anyway I can

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            I see a woman in the night

            With a baby in her hand

            Under an old street light

            Near a garbage can

            Now she puts the kid away and she’s gone to get a hit

            She hates her life and what she’s done to it

            That’s one more kid that will never go to school

            Never get to fall in love never get to be cool

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            We got a thousand points of light

            For the homeless man

            We got a kinder gentler machine gun hand

            We got department stores and toilet paper

            Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer

            Got a man of the people says keep hope alive

            Got fuel to burn got roads to drive

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world

            Keep on rockin’ in the free world


  30. Thanks for this post Eric. I am often met with anger when discussing some of these things with people. I’m really starting to feel pretty hopeless about all this. I hope the previous poster is wrong, your voice is badly needed.

    • Thanks, Preacher –

      I take courage from the fact that there are sane – moral – people left out there. It’s just a matter of expanding their ranks – and then closing ranks.

      • Please be aware, sometimes Sane and Moral aren’t all that’s needed.
        Wetwork, et al. Womeone has to pull the trigger sometimes.

      • I just feel bad that the guy blew a fuse and let them get the best of him. Some of these cops really like the power trip that comes with pushing people’s buttons. Nothing better pleases them then what happened to this guy. They feel vindicated that they shot him because he supposedly took the first shot. Nothing could be further from the truth.

        A couple of months ago I was eating a ice cream cone and McD’s and finished the ice cream and threw out a small part of the edible cone for the birds to eat. An officer came up and demanded me to pick it up for littering. I just stayed calm went out and picked it up. Sure he got his jollies playing bully, but I’m smarter than that dumb fuck and won’t play his game. And his game was the hope I’d elevate my blood pressure or worse so he could go baton or gun ballistic adrenaline on me. You don’t have to like these creeps if they come off on you for no reasonable cause, and they know what scum they really are. They know they are building enemies and its why they are crowd scared even though their job isn’t that dangerous yet. If they were smart they would befriend the average citizen instead of antagonize. And some of them are smart like that believe it or not. I didn’t even feel the slightest like I swallowed my pride picking up the stupid cone for a stupid fuck of the law, and that is because I know that God is judging and payback is a coming for the demented. For the last will be the first and the first are going to be the last. My brother will extract the revenge for these master thugs all by himself all I have to do is show I don’t approve of their antics by facial expression and callousness and they already know they are damned for picking on a peaceful resident.

        As far as this guy so sad as I’m sure he left behind people who loved him very much and it is sad he didn’t get the opportunity to vent and release on a site like this instead of taking on the police in a useless last stand. I hate to say it but I’m seeing more along the line of Ghandi for peaceful resistance. Its hard to stay in a meditative state though when having bamboo shoots stuffed under your fingernails figuratively. Obviously, the police have no reason to arrest people for the possesion of marijuana alone, even if all the hyped laws say they do. Obviously the silliness will be applied to vitamins or anything that the state doesn’t approve as a cartel in our own damn bodies. The people who force laws such as marijuana prohibition are in the wrong ethical pose and will be judged very harshly by the end arbitrater. The badge will say very little about their rotten incentives of betraying the God’s own people. And the damned both uniformed and not will be ashamed. I see most cops and they are not blessed people, they are plain miserable and go out kiling their wives and children. They are the demon undertakers of the political elite and they know it. I’m not one that believes in driving under the influence however, but again my views is that possesion is not a crime in the eyes of sanity.

        If I can say that I despise the bully cops as much as the next guy. But, it does no good to go out like this guy. Further I take all people as individuals and there are good peacekeepers too though rare these days. You will not win fighting toe to toe with a gang of theives and thugs especially wearing a uniform in an arena of their choosing and well practiced for them. You got to fight in a way they never anticipate. And the best way is to stay calm, rationale, and logical. This places someone under the influence already at a disadvantage. So don’t get out on the road after using a substance as you’re already at a disadvantage but also the impaired state isn’t conducive to good driving either. I think ethically a person has a right to do anything they want with their own bodies but not endanger others on the road either. So I deviate a bit from most on here I suppose that I’ve heard enough of drunk judges who kept running over small children and getting nothing but a slap on the wrist in the late 60’s. True any of us did that back then we’d been locked up, but still being self responsible is about avoiding innocent loss of life while also being allowed our own judgment on things that have no effect on anyone else.

        May I suggest that violence sometimes gets returned to the Cheka police when the crowd gets really tired of being abused. But that is a revolution and we as a nation are nowhere near that point. There is still time for us to make people conscious of the loss of their liberties and withraw our support peacefully. Further embracing the 4% of paretos is all that is needed. There is still time to shrink the government by withdrawal by peaceful dissent. We need every rationale and logical mind that understand the dire situation, so ending a good life short for feeble results is especially sad for our side. Stay calm and rationale people and get your revenge peacefully. Win by logic and the peace of mind and the beast will collapse on its own ugly weight and the disgust by the public for the rulers will drive them under a rock ashamed. And they’ll pray that the rocks cave on them but they won’t as damned as they are for betraying the good people of God.

        Also they are all damned as they are for calling God’s natural medicine like marijuana and cocaine plants as evil. Seems to me if God created it for our needs they are already on the wrong statement and page with God by calling his invention bad. All of this was placed for our enjoyment and needs. Damned they are. But what would I know? Alot actually.

        Hot Rod

        • Hand clap, Hot Rod. Very well said. It is a long process, turning one mind at a time. Violence just negates any progress that has been made!

  31. Eric, you have a lot of courage. You must be aware that eventually those costumed thugs will be coming for you.

    What you describe in the auto/traffic system is a microcosm of every other ‘industry,’ from family law to economics to psychology to to education to energy et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    I’m curious; do you honestly see things turning around?

    • I have to respectfully disagree with you, Karalan. Even should Eric and his supporters become the most powerful and numerous association of dissidents against the World Police State, all the PTB would need do is co-opt his message and his life’s work as their own.

      “Today the 3rd Decade of the 21st Century begins. The UN and the USA each chose to strictly adhere to the NAP and evolve into wholly voluntary peaceful service organizations only 4 short years ago.

      Today, we proudly rule those of you world citizens who wish to be ruled and prosper as our consenting members. It was always our hope and dream that we would one day occupy and flourish from this new and more solid higher moral ground.”

      • Morning, Tor –

        I have often wondered how I would bear up if, say, some corporate entity put a pile of money under my nose to buy out EPautos and put me to work as their caged mouthpiece. I hope I would decline; I’m doing ok and have my self-respect – which is invaluable. I know in my heart I’m not shilling for anyone. But, could I resist the Big Pile?

        It’s exactly like combat. You can’t know until you’ve been in the situation.

        Guys like Glenn Beck cashed in. I hope I never will.

        • I believe Tor is comparing you to the Tea Party, which is now just an extension of the Rethuglican party.

          Pity, I had hopes for them – but the Pols just mouth the words the sheeple want to hear, and the sheeple eat it up, and BINGO, the Tea Party (or whatever) becomes part of the establishment.
          Only solution – same as previously stated, end the establishment. Make too big to fail become too big to control. (What the US used to be, BTW – too big to control.)

          • I wouldn’t dismiss the Tea Parties, Jean. They’re a bit like the Hydra. Cut off one head in battle, and three new ones appear, all with fiercely gnashing teeth and hungry maws the PTB need to keep feeding to stay in power.

            An untamed beast which is partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist is a formidable animal who strikes fear into statists and zookeepers everywhere.

        • But, could I resist the Big Pile?

          If the inducement was money, the “Big Pile” would almost certainly be in the form of Fed-issued fiat currency, something well on its way to becoming green-colored ass-wipe (think: Weimar Germany, post-WWII Hungary, and present-day Zimbabwe). If that’s the case, then I think, Eric, that not only do we know you better than that, but that you know YOURSELF better than that. As a well-known and respected libertarian pundit, it’s clear that you have not only high time preference, but are future-oriented as well. While none of us, as you state, really know how we’d react if such an opportunity actually ever came our way, I have to believe that you’d consider all of the implications carefully and, based on your knowledge of the present and common sense-based predictions of the future, you’d very likely decline the offer.

          At least I hope so…

          • The “carrot” would not be offered without a big stick to go along with it, remember.

            “Here’s the money… here’s the script.

            Oh, and it would be such a shame if anything happened to your family.”

            It would not seem wise to even start to play that game. sigh

        • Take the money and run is my suggestion. Go to another country and set up shop from there. Nobody here would fault you if you restarted under a few years later.

          Just my opinion though as I don’t envy, get jealous, or think anyone is my “leader” so though I’d miss the old ericpetersautos for a while along with the posters, it would all work out in the end. Nobody should be expected to be Atlas and have to carry the world on their shoulders all by themselves. We’re all in this together to spread the message of freedom, but nobody has to be the target or pay the price anymore than the rest of us. I’ve always said this that nobody has fought for my freedoms and I don’t expect anyone else to fight for them either, that is solely my own task and duty.

          On the other hand if it was expected that you personally had to be the mouthpiece and tow the company line on a daily basis to receive your paycheck, I don’t think that would work. You have quit for the same offense the big boys and I don’t think you could go back to being a cog in the machine even if you wanted. Just not you Eric.

          Hot Rod

        • I could see you doing so on your terms for Ron Paul or the like. A striving for high moral caliber seems a closely held value for you, which does rule out many possible paydays.

          Sure Glenn Beck is worth $105 million, but he seems tightly wound and insanely weepy much of the time.

          Better to peacefully eat hamburger on your own back 40, than be holed up in a thousand acre estate bunker eating Kobe beef in fear of reprisals or your nagging conscience.

          I find Glenn very engaging and good at his craft, but I don’t believe I envy him much. I admit I would trade places just to enjoy the thrill of liquidating so many assets for no-one’s collective good but my own whatsoever.

          • I doubt I’d bite. I’ve got a pretty good life – nice wife, nice place. I’m fairly content, materially speaking. And I don’t feel oily – which is priceless.

        • I would have trouble resisting. The great thing about this country is that you can always start something else, but it’s your name you’re talking about. Glenn Beck had a show that bore his name. Your situation would be a little different. You don’t have assistants and psychophant followers as he did. This is all yours.

          • I’m pretty content with what I have – which acts like a Temptation Shield against selling out. Sure, it’d be nice to be able to go to Barret Jackson and buy a 100 point “perfect” restored Brewster Green SD-455 Trans-Am four-speed (one of my favorites) but I’ve got a pretty decent ’76 – not as rare (or as fast) perhaps, but not bought with corporate shill money, either!

            I wouldn’t mind having another 50 acres; and I’d like to finish my guesthouse this summer. But I’d rather have 16 acres – and work on the guest house as money and time permits – than become like Beck. I guess I’m just not socially conditioned enough to value money and status as much as I am supposed to.

        • eric, a friend who does do internet went to the NRA convention and listened to Glenn. He was blown away by his oratory, bought 10 copies of “Control” and sent me one. Nothing there most of us here don’t already know including his statistics. Kudos to Glenn on making a killing saying the same things he learned from Ron, Sowell, Block, Rozeff, Napolitano and countless others. Tell people what they want to hear and give them references, yeh Glenn. Wanta read it? I’ll send it to you.

          • 8-south, don’t forget Alex Jones. Much of Glenn’s material comes directly, often hours after, Jones’ meticulously researched output.

            And yet he seems to harbor some weird antipathy to him….”sounds like the ravings of a fascist” he said once about Jones.

            I’m glad if he’s waking some people up. It bothers me a bit that he doesn’t seem to have a genuine moral compass; he’s in it for the audience. And he’s misused his platform to mislead people at times–such as when he supported the original 2008 “bailouts”.

            AFAIK he still denies the existence of the FEMA concentration camps–despite the publicly-available documents like the army’s FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual.

            I’m leery of Glenn Beck.

          • meth, I’m still not on his bandwagon. I know his past, have heard him utter BS time and again. Just because he wants everybody to think he’s a freedom fighter doesn’t mean my memory failed. He’s opportunistic to be kind, a flat out backstabber to be accurate. As long as he’s pushing people away from the feds though, he’s not ALL bad. I simply keep an eye on him and wait for the “other” shoe to fall if you know what I mean. I.E., his record is highly “inconsistent”. BTW, that link you supplied made Firefox go bonkers, didn’t want to take me there, bad juju it said.

          • 8-south:

            Try this link instead, you’ll have to find FM 3-39.40 by scrolling down about half-way. They’re alphabetically ordered.

            Strange that Firefox gave me the same bad-juju warning. A few months ago, I downloaded the original document straight from there.

            Seems they’re not so keen on sharing it anymore. You know, sharing the document they used MY money to write, and the camps they used MY money to build.

            Here’s another source for it that doesn’t have bad juju.

          • 8-south–also, I hear you on Glenn Beck and I figured you’re no wet-behind-the-ears beltwaytarian!

            I call out Glenn Beck whenever I can, so the uninformed and recently-informed know to watch their backs around him.

            As you say though–if he wakes people up, great.

          • Oh, meth, welcome back, sorry to hear you’re ill. I was beginning to wonder if you were taking a break at club fed. I know how life can be rocking along and in a second, can turn into a veritable shitstorm. I left countless cases of ammo stacked right where the BATFE left them knowing they’d come back. 5 years later they sent the locals who gave me a raft of shit to which I replied ‘I knew you’d be back so I left everything sitting just as the BATFE left it”. Go check the old photos or just call them but leave me the fuck alone. BTW, the next time you come, they’ll still be right here….and they did and it was. I’m thinking of finding it all a new home, maybe neatly nestled in large cap mags hung side by side for quick reload.

          • Ha! Thanks 8-south.

            As far as club fed–Big Bad Bill is Sweet William Now. I’m not precisely in their targets, yet. They’re going after the actually effective ones–guys like Michael Hastings. By the time they’re coming after guys like you and me, the revolution will be well underway…and I’ll not be caught at home 🙂

            Speaking of Michael Hastings–Eric, et al–have you guys ever heard of an engine + transmission of a Mercedes leave the car at right angles while the car is still moving in a straight line??

            If he wasn’t murdered by car bomb, then my name is Barack and I’m Kenyan.

            Totally obvious. Way worse than Breitbart; it was a very, very plain message to journalists–“Yeah, we listen to you. Step out of line? BOOM! You’re dead!”

          • meth, one more thing on the pdf. What(I can’t seem to find it)does I/R mean? Everything hinges on that and they give definitions for all other abbreviations. I thought my cuz was gonna have a conniption from me using NAP last week in an e. I’m going to devote my life to using abbreviations from now on. As Bugs would say Ain’t I a stinker? Another thing about GB you speak of him using AJ’s work, sometimes only hours after his using it. Demonize someone, delegitimize them and people will shun them. This is a good tactic when you’re merely plagiarizing someone and don’t want your audience to find where you got your information. He also plays on those who don’t use the internet, a big failing I can’t seem to convince my old friend of. I do send him stuff through his wife though that is only available on the net so he has to read it sometimes. He feels it’s dehumanizing just because his wife and I have had major battles over what she says and used to whole-heartedly believe. She was a run outside, run the flag up the pole, stand and salute person, literally. After what happened to my wife and I, and he rightly pointed out done at the behest and by those she so proudly idolized, she started to some around. I’ve had her reading LRC for years now, a great place to start those who need some “re-education”. Thanks for the link, even if I can’t figure out I/R.

          • meth, the MH thing stunk from the very first reports. I’ve seen one since that had the same info you spoke of. It said he was travelling high speed when the car “jackknifed”. I don’t know how a car can do that but I get it turned suddenly, as if a driver who’s only input was the steering wheel and the brakes suddenly locked up on one side. Certainly they’ll say the car was too badly damaged to figure anything out and ignore the skid marks of two brakes on one side locking up on a very sophisticated ABS system. Sure, we believe. And now, more Ry. I realized I didn’t have that in CD, just an old album. I need to fix that.

  32. Great points Eric, I’m in my sixties and this is definitely NOT the country I grew up in. I’m also afraid we’re at the tipping point into full blown police state fascism, and even though I take heart from the people on this site I know there aren’t enough of us to push back against this tide. The costumed thugs have way more powerful weapons than our second amendment rifles and shotguns; I live in the Boston area and they brought in half an armored division to catch 2 “terrorists” who were probably part of an FBI sting gone awry. They shut down an entire city and the sheeple applauded them for it! Absolutely sickening! Let’s hope they all get to meet officer friendly in similar circumstances to your article here. Probably so brainwashed they thank him for screwing them over, after all he’s keeping us “safe”. Maybe they can sing “God Bless Amerika” as they get marched into the camps.

    • Mike, I think so too. I don’t blame the kid at all. Being locked up in a holding cell with other arrestees is a crapshoot. You might come out OK, you might get beaten to death, or used as a plea-deal pawn by some snitch, or who knows what.

    • Mike, I think the good ole days were not necessarily so good. Why, when you were just a little wee of a lad, Ronnie Reagan was playing the role of stukatch for J. Edgar Hoover and state legislatures were strengthening segregation laws and young men were being conscripted and the alphabet soup agencies were piling on regulatory burdens by the day.

      Today, the state is far more able to badger, harass, hound, monitor, scan and taze you than it was in the days of your youth. The state has always possessed the willingness to inflict harm; it now has ever greater capability to do so.

      Like you, I was horrified by the sheer sheepleness of the sheeple in Watertown.

    • “I know there aren’t enough of us to push back against this tide”

      Just looking at the comments on the original story proves this point quite well.

      • Yeah, we’re done. I was talking to Eric this morning on the way to work. It’s just a matter of filling in all in now. Bill of Rights and and our Freedoms are gone. We (us on this site in agreement) are atomized particles amongst a jungle of clovers. We are completely unable to collect ourselves, or are scattered too far apart to make any difference. Honestly, I don’t even give a shit anymore. We should not have allowed the clovers to take over!

        DNA samples and oil checks for any arrest. Need I say more?

        • It does always seem like a new low is reached. The Tea Party Collapse. The non-event of Occupy Wall Street. The dissolution of the Ron Paul R3volution.

          – – – –
          Maybe this can provide some quantum of solace?

          First article of the first issue of L. Neil Smith’s Libertarian Enterprise, from October of 1995.

          “Although most of us are politically active, as contributors to The Libertarian Enterprise, we have no interest in converting anyone to anything. Our experience is that few individuals are qualified to be libertarians, that it requires more patience and genius than today’s products of public education are capable of, and that anyone who must be persuaded to be free probably doesn’t deserve to be. “

          What the Libertarian Enterprise Is and Isn’t

          Publisher L. Neil Smith.

          • “…anyone who must be persuaded to be free probably doesn’t deserve to be. “

            THIS! (I would remove the “probably” from the above statement, but otherwise spot on.)

            Seriously, I too have reached the point where I feel not one ounce of pity or sympathy for the Clover that finds itself on the wrong side of the Establishment’s wrath or that finally feels the changes of bondage cutting of the circulation in its limbs.

            Why not? Because in 99.999999 instances out of 100, said Clover was an enthusiastic enabler of such Establishment tyranny – as long as it benefited from it.

            Any human life form so soulless that it craves control over itself by some higher temporal power or that would exercise petty and unnatural authority over others in order to satisfy its own shallow, worthless ego is a creature to be held in absolute contempt. I say this mostly because “epiphanies” by the average Clover of the benefits of freedom too often are insincere and self-serving (i.e., “how can I assure freedom FOR ME, but tyranny for everyone else?”).

            While it’s not difficult to spot a sincere “convert” to the cause of liberty, a Clover who has been genuinely “born again” (so to speak), IME these are few and far between. With freedom comes responsibility for one’s own life and actions, something Clovers biologically avoid like snails avoid salt.

        • dom, don’t give up. It’s easy to feel the way you do but not accurate. Just when I think I’ll never meet someone who feels like I do, wham, out of the blue, somebody I never met before clicks with me and we find we have basically the same views and then they introduce you to their friends who are like minded and you begin to think, Hey, maybe I’m not as lone as I thought. I’ve belonged to an informal forum of old college buddies for a decade plus now and of the ones that were died in the wool Republicans, two voted Libertarian the last election. They would never admit that my ragging on them and showing them the hypocrisy of those they chose to follow for so long had anything to do with it but I know better. I don’t throw it in their face either, never mention it. I know they still aren’t weaned but voting straight Libertarian is good enough. I don’t need to dig to the depths of their minds, I can see it every day in their writings how their opinions have changed. I have changed too, won’t say I haven’t. We are all a work in progress. Time will heal all wounds. I have to tell myself that everyday and hope the bleeding stops a little more, that the wounds are slowly closing or else I should just eat my rifle and be done with it.

        • Evidently there weren’t enough people who saw the end of this film:

          A few thousand copy cats might be pretty hard to deal with.

          • Seriously Ed, Agreed. I have been posting such time and time again across the past few years. Do Not trade one for one with the low level enforcers and clovers. We are 1pct of their size. When each of us, with individual and Spiritual introspection, reach that line in the sand, we must not array ourselves against the minion level (unless absolutely forced to). Aim higher, aim for the head of the squid. Make each and every message count. There are only a few thousands in varying levels of control at the top. At the very top (or at least the ‘top’ that we can identify), maybe a few hundreds but certainly under 1k. And the ones the “Elite” like to have us fawn over in the media? Measured in tens. I agree with the poster above who said he had given up (as have I, long ago). But for me, that only means I am hardened and ready (resigned) to face what is coming. Focus your efforts, once you have the basic survival mindset and equipment, on marksmanship. A decent 762 can ring a steel target at 1,000 yards consistently thus would make a nice platform. Frankly for soft targets I prefer 338 Lapua, 408, and the newer Barrett 416 given ballistics. The latter two quite capable of hits at 2,000 yards. I for one am setting up our out-of-harms-way place outside of the US for the family while stocking it and our US abode well with recent firearms purchases. I suggest others do the same. Best to you all…

          • “we must not array ourselves against the minion level”

            Yes, I agree, Alpine Knight. BTW, I’m the ‘Ed’ who posted about having given up, but not the ‘Ed’ who posted the video clip. Apparently, the siteware here allows duplicate users of screen names.

            The minions are numerous, unlike their instigators.

      • Do recall the words of Jefferson: “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will farm for those who do not.”
        Standing army, anyone?

    • For what it’s worth, there’s a tiny bit of encouraging news: for the first time since 9/11 more people fear the government than terrorists:

      Of course, this doesn’t cover the pussies calling themselves “Boston Strong”, and I’m sure the poll will move in the other direction once the sheep perceive another threat, but at least people are talking about government in terms of a dangerous threat instead of a protector.

      • Hi Brian,

        Yup – it is encouraging.

        But what I fear is that before a further awakening can coalesce, the PTB are going to shut things down for good.

        We are very close to a critical mass moment.

        • We can only hope that if this does happen (heaven forbid) that enough people will have awakened by then to rise up and put a stop to it. I’m not optimistic, but one has to hope.

        • I wish beyond hope that “we” could change anything but I agree with the “pessimistic” (realist) view being shared here that freedom is not going to be sprung from the ashes and shared around the globe by most people. Freedom will always exist, but at this point in history, it will be nothing but a footnote. Soon to be erased by the conquerors or just simply forgotten in time as has happened many times already…and will continue to happen.

          “This has all happened before, and it will happen again, and again, and again, and again…” -Battlestar Gallactica

          I’ll continue to be as “good” as I possibly can, but I’ve got my fucking eyes open and I see many within my family and community that are absolutely not awake and never will be. Snitching is just too fucking convenient. Those who snitch can convince themselves that they’re “just trying to live their life” and that excuse is all the sheeple need to wave in (or just simply support) tyranny.

          • “Soon to be erased by the conquerors”

            How’s that working in Afghanistan?
            Push just hasn’t come to shove yet.
            Is the blackmarket dead?
            All I can say is, Stop looking under rocks for birds.
            Someday, after The Wall comes down, those under the rocks might come out and have a yearning to fly,… or a least jump up high.

          • Your comment, “Freedom will always exist, but at this point in history, it will be nothing but a footnote. ” Reminds me of this article:

            Liberty Is Winning, Mostly

            Also reminded me of the saying about how things are always bleakest at the threshold of breakthroughs. …Or something like that. Not that I’m discounting the possibility of We’re Freaking Doomed from happening. It’s always a possibility.

            One last thought: are you familiar with the concept of The Fourth Turning? The phrase, ‘and the worm turns’, comes to mind. It’s a lot like how it’s no longer cool to wear polyester pants, no one does it anymore. I think maybe someday soon the know-nothings will act like they knew all along too.

      • Hi Brian,

        I’m very bullish about the message being heard. Seems to me that people are getting fed up with being milked and the alternate media is penetrating the once subconcious minds of people in a trance. Its like WD-40 on a rusty bolt, it may take a bit of sitting but the message of freedom is loosening up the bolts all on its own. That and the fact that many people are ending the “I’m not going to live forever stage of their lives, and are fearing less the ramifications that scared them at a much younger age”. It may be that U.S. overly mature population not only has good memories of much freer days, the internet is penetrating even indirectly through family members at the minimum, technology is outpacing the control freaks ability to keep up, and as I said people see the fallacy that they have supported an illigetimate government for way too long.

        I do believe everyone capable of getting the message is worth conveying it. Being a leader and teacher in life is about spending the time even on people who seem incapable of helping. You’d be surprised how a lot of people will listen to a man that has nothing personally to gain. It takes a bit more tact to work with these people, don’t beat them down hard with too much force. Let the WD-40 sit on them a while. Say a few quotes of freedom. Let it sit, spray on a few more words and even the most stubborn people will start loosening up over a 2-4 year span. Everyone saved is well worth the time, you get support it grows exponentially.

        Hot Rod

      • The brutish cops are a symptom and a phase. If the PTB had any brains at all, they’d make sure the returning troops could get work in any field but law enforcement. Because the occupying forces have gotten used to brutalizing a cowed civilian population in the “warzones” / “police actions” / “emperor’s adventures”. And when they don their new costumes in their post-military occupation as “law enforcers”, the habits of occupying troops are what we see.

        I’ve seen references to the abuses heaped on the populace by the troops that participated in the occupation of the Philippines over a hundred years ago. Brutal cop-thugs are nothing new. History does repeat.

        The worst possible thing that the PTB could have happening is the populace waking-up and seeing their chains. And the brutal cop-thugs who treat the taxpayers / serfs like the civilians they brutalized while serving as imperial occupying troops are serving as a very loud alarm clock.

        All the “legal” advantages the PTB has granted their enforcers has not gone unnoticed. Sovereign immunity will be their downfall as they use and abuse their “athoritah”. Waco-ing suspects like Dorner presents the ugly, true face of the modern-day police forces. Testilying is rampant, and at some point in the future, juries will tend to disbelieve anything a cop says.

        The tide is turning. It just moves slowly. And when it gets traction and starts gaining speed, look out.

    • What a joke of an article. We should leave people drive however they feel like? Some road rage libertarians have said that not signaling is a major offense! They use it as an excuse to endanger others and cut someone off from where they wanted to go! I guess that is another story. Clover

      Then you say it is OK to run from the police and they should just let you go? With that said we would have thousand of criminals on the street that we now do not have. That sure sounds like fun! Clover

      How about the guy that shoots at the cops. You say that is OK too? It is OK because he had an excuse? We should just let him go?

      A good thing we do not have libertarians in charge in the USA!

      • You should discern the circumstances before jumping to a conclusion. Sometimes people are a little frightened of cops even if they have done nothing wrong. Even clovers slow down for cop cars. Give it a rest with the libertarian thing. It’s as stale as the gay marriage debate. Come up with some new lines already.

        • Clovers always want to feel like someone is, ‘in charge’ just like a boss or a slaver is/are/have been.

          While not road related, I came across this example of some ‘new lines’ the Clovers of the world embrace:

          “The government wants all South Africans who trade with each other to register and get approval with a bureaucratic office before they can do so. The bill would also give the state the power to raid any private residence if suspected to be engaging in any form of trading. The state has pressed hard to go ahead with the state protection of information bill, which would criminalise anyone exposing government wrongdoing. The state makes it very onerous for a person who wants to own a firearm for self-defense to acquire one legally, while criminals who disregard the law can buy a firearm on most street corners. The Rica Act [the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act], also gives the South American government the power to spy on its people and according to some makes the NSA spying scandal look like spying from a distance.”

          Now that’s some control a Clover can feel warm about.

          Anyway, myself, I like Shazaam’s idea as a good first counter baby-step towards a better life: anyone who has been a soldier should never be a cop.
          Never, ever.
          And fire them all now.

        • swamprat, frightened innocent people do not run from the cops and roll down the window and start shooting at them! Is that a libertarian right you are trying to push onto us? If you can not control yourself when stopped then should you really be driving?Clover

          • clover, I just realized who you are….Ann Coulter. Yep, got you pegged, speak just like her and have the same views. well, well, well

          • Mith, it is her. Ann? Could you take off your blouse? I’ve been curious about that Adam’s Apple for decades.

          • Eightsouthman, now that’s just plain mean!

            “Could you take off your blouse? I’ve been curious about that Adam’s Apple for decades.”

            How in the heck am I supposed to get some sleep with that image in my mind? E-gads man, have some compassion.

          • That’s right, Clover. Because cops are our friends and protectors. They never abuse people. Never run roughshod over them. Just relax… Submit & Obey … and all your problems will be solved.

          • Innocent of what clover? Do you consider it a crime to be in possession of a weed that grows wild all over North and South America despite incessant tax funded efforts to eradicate it? A true crime requires an injured party. Now you may argue that using recreational drugs “injures” the individual, but that, like piercings, tattoos, sky diving, spelunking and snake handling are a matter of individual choice. Not things that need to be declared “illegal” by you and your ilk. Let’s use spelunking for an example of prohibition. Let’s say the U.S. gun-vernment declares spelunking to be a dangerous activity and worthy of laws prohibiting citizens from “thrill seeking” in this dangerous manner because of the burden it places on the public health-care system and rescue workers. Yet private individuals with caves on their property allow paying customers to go crawling around in these holes in the ground for a much higher price than before, because it’s a now a prohibition induced black market and the risk to reward ratio is so high.

            The authorities discover that you, clover, are one of these illicit “cave dealers.” They bring men with guns to your house, storm the place, shoot your dog, taze you and beat you down before they confiscate your land and home and put you in a cage. Would you feel that since you violated an arbitrary statute against “cave dealing” that you were in the wrong and deserved what you got? No. You would consider a law prohibiting cave diving, especially in the privacy of one’s own cave, to be ludicrous. After a prolonged vacation at Hotel Graybar with a “celly” named Ben Dover you’d have a remarkably different outlook on the “justice system.” Henceforth, you would have a healthy distrust of government and their enforcers. So you clean up your act, work hard and buy another house and land…with no cave on the property. You start raising your own vegetables and make sure they’re GMO vegetables so you don’t offend Monsanto and risk another run-in with “the law.” Then a drought comes. You decide to dig a big hole in your backyard and install a cistern (an underground water storage tank). There you are digging this big hole in your backyard when the county assessor flies over, sees it and reports you to the cave and cavern enforcement agency.

            The next thing you know, you’re overrun by balaclava clad thugs with guns for the “crimes” of manufacturing an artificial cave (digging a hole), possession of cave manufacturing paraphernalia (shovel and pick axe) and possession of a cave with intent to engage in spelunking. You know you haven’t harmed anyone or done anything that’s actually wrong. But you also know what’s about to happen to you in the name of justice, so you cut and run. Once the authorities have you pinned down, you make the decision to fight because you know that otherwise you will be caged and treated badly. Based on past experience, you know there are worse things than death so you call your mama, tell her you love her and won’t be coming over any more. Then you open fire . All because you liked to go crawling around in holes in the ground and other folks (with the cloverian nosy busybody mindset just like you), think there “oughta be a law against it.”

            In a free country there would be no such laws. In a free country men with guns wouldn’t be out prowling around looking for people engaging in statutorily prohibited non-crimes to punish. In a free country changing lanes without using a turn signal would not be a punishable offense. No one would be punished for anything until someone else was demonstrably injured by their actions…in a free country. That’s where we’re supposed to live clover. In a constitutional republic where you’re innocent until proven guilty and when there is no harm there is no foul. That’s a free country. But because of people like you, we now essentially live in a police state where if “they” want you, “they” can find something to gig you with. Be careful what you wish for clover, you just might get it. And *it* might just might get you before it’s over.

      • That’s right, Clover.

        But, let me correct your phraseology:

        Libertarians do not want to be in charge of anything. They want to be left in peace, provided they conduct themselves peacefully.

        That means, no armed goons attempting to kidnap/cage them at gunpoint for non-crimes such as not using a turn signal when no other traffic is present and thus, it is literally impossible for any harm to others to have taken place as a result.

        It also means that if armed men accost you, you have a right to flee – and to try to defend yourself.

        I understand, of course, that such concepts are alien to a mentality such as yours.

        • OK Eric. You say that armed guards stop us for not using a turn signal? I know of libertarians that speed up and aim their speeding cars at someone that does not use a turn signal! Tell me which is worse? I would rather have a trained person that can go to jail or lose their job if they do something wrong. It seems to me from hearing from libertarians that they do want to control others. They want to be able to endanger others. Clover

          You know in theory in a perfect society libertarianism would be very good. A perfect society does not contain people that become enraged at the drop of a hat. They would not go into a fury when someone drives 2 mph too slow for them! They would not go into a fury when someone only passes a car by 5 mph. In a perfect society we would not have people drinking a half a dozen quick drinks and going out and killing others!

          You find me that perfect society and I will jump onto your libertarian train!Clover

          • Clover, you have this habit of responding to things I never said.

            Again: There is a difference between failing to signal in the presence of oncoming traffic (dangerous) and failing to use a signal when there is no other traffic in the vicinity. Right? Will you at least acknowledge that?

            In the case at issue, the cops were looking for a pretext – an excuse – to pull over the man. They were going to pull him over. If he had used his turn signal, they’d have come up with some other reason. The man was in the crosshairs. Doomed, no matter what he did. Further evidence of this is the notorious “You ain’t got no weed” (cops are such literate people, aren’t they?) statement that followed. You know what was coming next… right? They were determined to search the car. And needed another excuse. The bullshit excuse of arbitrarily illegal drugs.

            And, in re “enraged.”

            You are the one who reflexively resorts to the application of violence at every turn – not I. I may be vociferous in commentary, but I would never harm or threaten to harm you physically, unless you threatened me physically first.

            And no, Clover, my driving by you over the double yellow because you’re driving slower than I’d like to drive does not constitute violence. You aren’t harmed by my actions. I am simply refusing to be controlled by your actions.

          • Eric I have been harmed by people passing in a no passing zone. People coming straight at you at a combined 120 mph with only a couple of hundred feet to react or less has caused me to slam on the brakes and pull off the road! I have been lucky because it has killed others! I would call that threatening and endangering others but you call it your rights! Clover

            Tell us Eric where you got your information that the cops were after this guy? Maybe the should be though if he is a person who deals drugs and shoots at the police! Is that your libertarian right to shoot at police when they stop you for a minor traffic offense? You say the driver did not signal because there was no traffic around him? Where did you get that information? Is it one of those cases where you say a turn signal is not needed when there is no traffic so therefore a turn signal should never be required? Tell me Eric is it a libertarian view that it is OK to endanger others? Everything you say backs up that view. You say you should be allowed to do whatever you feel like to endanger others and you should only be prosecuted if it kills or injures someone.

            Tell me Eric what kind of society would it be if people are allowed to do whatever they feel like when there are hundreds of thousands of mentally unstable people out there that do things like aim their cars at someone else to scared the hell out of them or hundreds of similar actions?

            • Clover, you are conflating things. Let me try to explain:

              There is a difference between simply passing over the double yellow (a violation of a law, yes – but not necessarily unsafe, if there is no oncoming traffic and the driver executing the pass does so quickly and competently) and an inept driver attempting to a pass when there is oncoming traffic (irrespective of the presence or absence of a double yellow).

              You conflate the two. You equate any pass over any double yellow as “unsafe” – period. This is nonsense. For example, in my area there are several stretches of road that are straight, with excellent lines of sight for 1/8-1/4 mile (or more) and ample room to safely pass (assuming a competent driver). These were legal passing zones six years ago. Now, they are painted over double yellow and it is illegal to pass. But it is not necessarily unsafe.

              Do you see?

              Why do you have a problem with the driver who competently – safely – executes a pass? I agree with you that a driver who puts others in danger – as by passing when there is oncoming traffic and not enough time to perform the maneuver without forcing the oncoming traffic to veer of the road (and so on) is deserving of criticism – and if he actually does cause harm, should be held severely responsible for any such harm he causes.

              But you want to punish people merely because they’ve violated some law.

              As far as the rest:

              I’ve explained it already. They pulled him over for no real reason – other than a legal pretext. What I mean is, his failure to signal wasn’t a threat to anyone as there were no other cars in the vicinity. (You can see this in the video.) Whatever you may think about “the law,” the fact is he could not have harmed anyone by his failure to signal. Therefore, he should have been left the hell alone – because as I see it, the only legitimate reason to interfere with another person’s liberty is when they’ve done something to cause harm to others.

              That is the main point I was trying to make in the article.

              Once pulled over, the cops pulled the “I smell pot” excuse out of their kit bag. They were going to search the guy and his car. The “I smell pot” thing provides the pretext. You don’t object to this, because you’re a supporter of the “war” on (some) drugs and support arresting/imprisoning people caught in possession of arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” Irrespective of any harm done; despite the absence of a victim.

              In brief, you support the use of violence against people not for anything they’ve done to cause you or any other person injury – but because you don’t like what they do – and seek to control and punish them.

              That mindset is what makes you a Clover. A person who wants to lord it over other people, with threats and violence as your tools.

          • I take this to mean you have a problem with people who’d drink a half a dozen drinks and then go drive responsibly….correct? Clover, you’re the person truckers actually hate to the point of doing things they normally wouldn’t do. We’ve all seen then thousands of times, the guy who won’t go over 55 but will them stay right beside you as you increase your speed to 75 to get around and he increases his speed to stay right beside you. I’ve had this happen so many times I’ve wished to have a blowout that would cost me hundreds of dollars but might blow the idiot beside me off the road. Of course, blowouts never happen when it would be beneficial and clovers are by their very nature, non-beneficial. I’ll give you a for instance. This actually has happened to me countless times but this time the guy increased his speed to 80 just to keep me from being able to pass. This shit went on for miles with me getting hotter and hotter because of the danger he was putting everybody in. The last time he did it he was still right beside me going up a hill, back in my blind spot. About half way up this long hill when I knew he wasn’t going to do anything but stay right beside me as he’d done several times I simply put on my turn signal and started pulling back into the lane. Unfortunately my wife was with me and started screaming(never a good idea with me)there was a car beside me. I pointed out he’d been right beside us for miles as she already knew and that I wasn’t going to play any longer, I’d had it. This guy was so stupid he stayed with me and pulled onto the shoulder. Fine, as long as I was back in my lane before traffic came over that crest of the hill. Now he can’t get in a blind spot so I’m looking him in the eye in my mirror. He sees the look and my face and just crams on his brakes, nearly collecting the safe drivers behind him…..but in his clover mind, he was in the right, no matter what he’d done to create that situation.

          • CloverThanks Eightsouthman. It sounds like you have as many or more problems with your reckless driving as the guys you complain about! If you both followed the laws there would be no confrontations. I guess we can not have that can we? It would be no fun for you I guess if police put a stop to your type of driving! Why is it that I never have confrontations on the highway? Why do you? I guess that answers it!

          • Clovereric, do you know why we have laws? It is because so many like you make your own determination of what is safe! Like that guy that says it is not tailgating driving behind another car 10 feet back at 75 mph! Like the guys that have made me slam on the brakes or push me off the road because they determined that they could pass in a no passing zone. Like the guy that has 8 to 10 drinks and goes out and kills a family! Eric there are hundreds and thousands of cases where people knew they were not following the law but their judgment that they are too good of drivers for laws caused accidents or killed someone. I am leaving this country when it becomes anything goes driving like you want!

            You say the cops stopped the car for not using their turn signal when no one was around. Often cops stop people like that to warn them they are doing something wrong and let them go when as you say they were not hurting anyone! We will never know if that was going to happen here because the guy started shooting at them instead.

            • Clover,

              Ever stop to consider that laws are written by people? Usually, sub-par people. (Who else goes into government?)

              Ever stop to consider that my judgment (and yes, even yours – in principle) is just as good – or rather, just as valid – as theirs?

              Perhaps better – and more so – than theirs?

              Your operate on the assumption that laws are a sort of holy writ, issued by higher-order beings with superior knowledge and judgment who are always impartial and fair, never motivated by base considerations (such as generating money or increasing their power). It’s such a simple – such an obvious – fallacy. Yet you and your ilk seem to be incapable of comprehending it.

              Again: Those cops had no right – ethically speaking – to initiate force against that man. He had done no harm to anyone, or even plausibly threatened to, by failing to use a turn signal. He violated a statute – a man-made law. But he did no wrong.

              Your fundamental problem is you cannot distinguish between “wrong” and “illegal.”

              For you, “illegal” is “wrong.” And “legal” is “right.”

              This is the mental (and ethical) defect that leads to the gulags – to Auschwitz.

              But of course, you cannot see it…

          • I just got done taking Bonkey for a ride down our local bike path. The path has two lanes created by yellow dotted passing stripes painted on the whole length of the asphalt path, the entire path for miles, around curves and over steep hills, is one huge passing zone.

            There’s no yield signs, no speed limit signs and nobody uses turn signals, or even hand signals. Everything seems to flow pretty smoothly with all kinds of signal-less passing going on and bikes weaving around pedestrians – some of whom are pushing baby strollers – it’s real close to being anarchy and everyone on the path seems to enjoy that fact.

            I imagine that’s what the roadways could be like. People would motion to one another, make eye contact, or simply keep to themselves and keep to the right. Even if they didn’t keep to the right, things would sort themselves out, but that requires thinking. Clovers do not like thinking. They want it all to be automatic and controlled, like robots.

          • Clover, my comment below is for YOU.

            You driveling, inane, pathetic excuse for a human being. Not only could you not defend yourself in a physical altercation, you wouldn’t even TRY. You’re a prey animal. You’re worse than that because they actually flee predators; you WORSHIP your predators.

            And a verbal altercation? An argument? A debate? There is no such thing with you. You’ve been so programmed, so damaged by propaganda and indoctrination, that you’re not functioning on a sapient level. You’re an automaton. A robot. A computer program–and not even a very cunning one.

            It’s horribly sad; that old ad is right, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

            Because when I look at my children, or I look at my friends, and see the intelligence, the spark, the LIFE in their eyes, that human creativity, rebellion, WILL…

            …and I read or talk to people like you, I see how much you’ve given up. How much has been stolen from you. Even your very humanity; the very fire that makes us what we are.

            I’m starting to believe again in the idea of a non-material “soul”–perhaps it’s a quantum-entangled field, perhaps something we have no science for. But when I see some of the slaves around me, I wonder if the NWO have developed a technology to actually snuff it.

            Because it’s like you’re not even there anymore.

          • Clover, you’ve repeatedly defended drivers that make others brake so why do you dislike it so much when someone forces you to brake to avoid them?

          • DownshiftFast5to1, you’re lucky. The bike paths by me are filled with clovers unless it’s the buttcrack of dawn or the hottest days of years. They are probably clear in the winter too but I wouldn’t know since I dislike winter bicycling.

            The clovers ride or walk slowly side by side blocking the whole path and all the other usual nonsense they do on the road.

          • Ann, go to bed. Your nonsense is maddening. I think it was meth who said ” a mind is a terrible thing to waste”….and he’s right. I’m so glad they didn’t waste one on you. Put some vanishing cream on your Adam’s apple and get some rest, you obviously need something to help your “mental” faculties.

          • Your operate on the assumption that laws are a sort of holy writ, issued by higher-order beings with superior knowledge and judgment who are always impartial and fair

            It’s a religion to these people, Eric, complete with all the working elements:

            Holy doctrine(law), pastors(congressmen), popes(president), penance(jail time/fines), excommunication(deportation), high priests(judges), churches(court rooms), cathedrals(capital building), idols/symbols(flags/badges/statues), hymns/chants(anthems/pledges), and whacked out fanatical followers (like Clover)

        • eric, I can only think of all the times over my life I’ve witnessed laws doing the worst job of driving you can imagine, even to the point of endangering the public for miles around. I saw one deputy slide up, or was going to slide up to an ‘potential altercation”, in other words, just someone who didn’t want to get it in the end. He comes in real hot in a 2003-4 Tahoe PPV….and rolls it right almost on top of a fender bender. Made me proud I live in the sticks. Of course I’ve had dealings that make that seem like the ultimate minimum. If Boothe hasn’t been there, he knows somebody real well who has been. In hindsight I should have grabbed that AR or the Mossberg Riot gun I had beside it, stuck my HK .45 Compact in the cheeks of my butt(and they were scared of me in my birthday suit, how CS can you get?)and done some serious shooting. They really don’t know how lucky they were. Well, actually I think the locals they brought along knew, but would never admit, the kind of people they were jacking up since one deputy I had rescued his ex-wife twice, along with the rest of the family, from a long night broke down on the road that runs in front of my place. It was on the way home and in the evenings I’d hear off in the distance the sound of people in a bind. Actually, my dogs picked it up, yeah dogs. all of you, each and every one, dogs rule…and so do cats, yeah, cats. Get this, after all the lies and BS, the BATFE had to leave all my ammo. I guess that’s sorta embarrassing…..not….when you can still bend someone over just because you’re the feds. Scum!! Clover…dipshit,….do I sound a bit peeved? How about bitter? I believe in NAP….most of the time. Not right now….remembering.

    • I just looked at the video. Anyone who had a problem with what the police did in this video has severe mental problems! Could someone tell us how they could act any better than what they did? They acted better than anyone who posted here! If you had a problem with the police in this video then there is no hope for you and you need to leave the country because it can get no better than how they acted!Clover

      • They could have “acted better,” Clover, by leaving that man alone. Again: He did nothing to cause or threaten harm to anyone. Nothing. He violated a statute. You can’t parse the difference. For you, “the law” is all that matters. Immediate deference. Or else.

        • OK Eric We see what you want! You want drivers with guns being able to shoot at others. Eric you do have mental problems! You say you are smarter than our politicians? I seriously doubt if any of our politicians are dumb enough to say it is fine to let dangerous killers go free! If you think you are going to get a big following with your views then our society has major problems! Clover

          The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) were nice people compared to you!

          • To be a Clover is to have a limited mind, “… or perhaps we should call it the literal mind. […] The literal mind is a programmed mind. […] The literal mind accepts all contradictions like hundred-dollar bills. […]

            The literal mind, under guidance from elite media anchors, will connect the dots directly in front of it, but it will avoid, at all costs, imagination. It will never posit alternative realities or explanations which then make those dots take on different meaning, fuller and deeper and truer meaning.

            The literal mind is full of fear and protection. It wants to protect itself and it is afraid that something novel might swim into view and shatter it to pieces.

            The literal mind is a clog in the bloodstream of life. It’s a believer in the extreme fairy tale of ordinary reality.

            The literal mind imports, wholesale, images of ordinary reality and clings to them like a leech. […] Do not hold out a helping hand to the literal mind. It will try to snap your finger off. That gesture is all it has left.” …


            • Hi Nick,

              It’s not so much that Clover’s stupid – in the sense of having a very low IQ. It’s that he is conditioned – and cannot think. His conceptual capacity is stunted.

              He is capable of dressing himself in the morning; getting into his car; going to his cube farm (or wherever) and performing a task that probably requires a certain level of functional intelligence. But he lacks the fully human ability to think abstractly, in terms of concept and principles – and apply these to particulars. He cannot deduct. He can only parrot.

              It’s sad.

              A genuinely dumb person cannot help being dumb. I feel nothing but sympathy for the mentally retarded. But Clover is not retarded.

              He is something much worse.

          • Clover, try to relax a little . . . and think a little bit.

            I made the case for peaceful co-existence. The notion that a man ought to be free to go about his business unless he’s actually harmed or very clearly threatens immediate harm to others. Got that? It’s leading somewhere.

            Now, if we accept the idea that a peaceful citizen minding his own business has a right to be left alone unless he’s harmed someone else or clearly doing something that threatens imminent harm, what follows from this? Think, now. It’s not hard, really.

            If someone assaulted you, Clover, would you be within your natural rights as a human being to defend yourself?

            Try, please, to answer these queries without emotional eructations, m’kay?

          • PS: You have far more in common with the KKK than I.

            Because you’re the one who resorts to violence and threats to get what you want – and get others to do what you want them to do. I, on the other hand, only want to be left in peace – and to leave you in peace. I want absolutely nothing from you, Clover. Not one penny of your money. Not to interfere with your right to live your life as you see fit (whether I agree with what you do or not) so long as what you do doesn’t actually cause me a tangible, physical injury.

            Can you say the same?

        • Eric in your own words you told me we should let drunk drivers go and not stop them unless they are driving erratically! The guy in the video crossed 3 lanes of traffic according to the policeman. You have said that we need to remove older drivers from the road because they drive erratically sometimes! Clover

          Tell me Eric if you say you should let poor driving go without even a warning I guess you are in favor of letting the drunk or old guy off until they kill someone?

          I am glad we do not have people like you running our government!

          • So you’re saying he did an ‘oh my exit’ or ‘oh my turn’ like any garden variety sober clover would.
            You argue we all have to yield to these drivers who change lanes without signal so what’s your problem with it all of a sudden?

          • Clover –

            You and I differ as to the meaning of “drunk.” That’s the issue. For you, “drunk” means anyone who has “x” arbitrarily decreed BAC. Even if they give no evidence that their actual driving is meaningfully impaired.

            I, on the other hand, am only concerned about drivers whose actual driving suggests they’re impaired – for whatever reason.

            Just yesterday, I was driving down the mountain to the gym. Ahead of me, a Ford Explorer whose driver was unable to keep his vehicle in his lane, who repeatedly crossed the double yellow in the curves – sometimes, putting three-fourths of his vehicle in the opposite lane. I doubt he was anything but sober. But he was an inept/careless driver. Yet no “checkpoints” to stop him.

            Meanwhile, the driver who hasn’t given anyone any reason to suspect impairment – in terms of his actual driving – gets arrested at a “checkpoint” solely because he’s found to have “x” BAC. The fact that no one can fault his actual driving is no defense (legally speaking). It is not even necessary to produce evidence of dangerous driving – just a BAC number.

            Make sense to you?

            People have different skill levels. Right? Would you disagree? People also respond to alcohol differently. Right? Would you disagree?

            “Smith” is an exceptional driver. He has very high skills, excellent reflexes and eyesight. He’s had three drinks – but he’s still a better (more competent/capable of controlling his car) driver than “Jones” – who has not had a single drink, but is low-skilled, with slow reflexes and poor vision.

            You don’t care about the very real risk to others presented by Jones – because he’s “sober” (as defined by law) despite being a demonstrably poor driver.

            But you do care about “Smith” – even though he’s no threat to anyone, because he’s an excellent driver, even with a few drinks in him.

            All you care about is your arbitrary, mindless legalisms. Not actual harm done.

          • Eric there are problems with your example. If there was a policeman following the vehicle that was going well out of his lane do you think the policeman should stop the vehicle? I say yes. Tell me how you were able to determine if the driver was drunk causing him to go out of his lane or just someone who was in full control who felt like doing it?
            If the police were able to have a checkpoint and they had a way to determine if a driver is going to be inept/careless/dangerous do you think it would be a good thing for for all of us to put a stop to such a driver? When the police stop a driver and he has a high BAC he is hundreds of times more likely to drive in an inept/careless/dangerous manner than you or I. If the driver has the same skills as you or I do when he is sober he is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to cause someone else harm when he has a high BAC! Why is it you do not want to do anything until he has a 100% chance of harming others? Would you want a driver with a high BAC to be on the roadway along side or coming towards your wife?

            • Clover,

              You advocate randomly stopping people in order to identify people who might be impaired, on the basis of their BAC.

              In other words, you don’t mind subjecting innocent people – the vast majority – to an unjustified (by anything they’ve done) stop/interrogation/inspection, if it will catch even one person who might – might! – be impaired to such an extent that his driving is dangerous.

              You don’t know they’re impaired, of course. It’s merely assumed – on the basis of an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all BAC. That’s vile. Because punishing people not for what they’ve done, but because you think they might do something – based on a very subjective and generalized criteria such as BAC – is fundamentally unfair.

              The court doesn’t have to prove a person’s driving was dangerous. Just that he had “x” BAC. Well, Clover, just like having a .08 BAC, having poor eyesight generally correlates with not-so-great driving; it’s a form of impairment (relative to an ideal). But not all people with less-than-ideal eyesight are poor drivers. Some are excellent drivers, despite less-than-great eyesight. Their higher skill/superior judgment compensates for their less-than-great eyes. Just as the higher skill of a very good driver compensates for having some alcohol in his system.

              Should we arrest/cage people who happen to have less than 20/20 vision, too? If not, why not?

              And if it’s ok – justifiable – to randomly stop people and subject them to a search/interrogation because “someone” might be drunk – then you should also agree that it’s justifiable for cops to randomly search our homes since after all, “someone” might be growing arbitrarily illegal drugs, or beating their wife, or doing some other illegal/wrong thing.

              Are you so addled that you can’t grasp this?

          • If there was a policeman following the vehicle that was going well out of his lane do you think the policeman should stop the vehicle? I say yes.

            Is this why you refuse to do to a cop what the drivers you defend do to me?

            You have defended the driver of the SUV in this video ( ) at length. Not only that but you attack me for staying in my own lane minding my own business. Notice, no signal at all from the SUV driver. He just moves over. You’ve defended every driver that has behaved in a similar manner. So now you say such drivers should be pulled over even if they do not cause another driver to take evasive action? Is that why you won’t put your convictions to the test in front of a cop?

          • Eric that is the difference between you and me. I would be willing to be stopped hundreds of times in my lifetime to prevent family members from being killed and injured but you want them to be on the same roadway and drunk with your wife on the road!Clover

            As for Brent’s video, that is some of your worst driving that you have done. You stay in the right lane and in someone’s blind spot for the entire time before they try to switch lanes! The SUV driver may be wrong but you are far worse in the video. You learned nothing in your drivers training!

            • But Clover, where does it end?

              You’re willing to accept being stopped for no reason (as far as anything you’ve done) if it will increase the chances that “drunk drivers” will be apprehended.

              That means, in principle, you should be willing to accept having cops randomly search your home, too. For the same reasons. It would certainly mean improved odds of apprehending men who abuse their wives – just for instance.

              You also ought to be willing to have government video cameras installed in your home – and so on. After all, “someone” might be breaking a law!

              You’ve already stated that you believe this end justifies the means when it comes to “catching drunks.” Why not wife beaters, tax cheats, kid touchers… and so on? Far more of those than “drunk drivers.”

              Point being: Your position concedes unlimited authority to the state; there is no aspect of our lives that’s off-limits. You can’t have it both ways. Either people have a right to be able to drive without being subjected to random stops for no reason – or they do not. If they do have a right to not be stopped for no specific reason, then they also have a right to not have their phones tapped, their homes searched (and so on) for no specific reason. On the other hand, if they don’t have a right to travel in peace without being randomly stopped (your position) then they also have no right (none that can be defended in principle) to be left in peace in their homes (and so on) either. They must be ready to submit to random searches there, too.

              Can you see?

              In any case, I’m not willing to cede my right to be left in peace – and you have no right to deny my right to be left in peace because “someone” might be doing something illegal.

              That’s the real difference between us, Clover. You’re a thug. A person who doesn’t respect the rights of innocent people – who believes using force against innocent people is justified in the name of some “greater good” – as defined by yourself.

              I’m not. Because I don’t.

          • CloverEric you do not get it! Searching a house is far far different than checking to see if someone is safe to be on the road. You are not going to injure others on a public highway from your house. Your wife has to take her own chances by living with her husband. She always has the option of leaving. You are saying we do not have an option to drive on a safe roadway! Clover

            You say that we do not check to see if someone has 20/20 vision to drive? Every state that I have lived in has a minimum vision standard with a test before you get your license. I am not saying that you put a driver with .002 BAC to go to jail. There has been testing for BAC for different people and how they react. They then set standards based on these tests along with crash statistics to set the maximum levels similar to minimum standards for vision. You show me your statistics that show that you can have a far higher BAC level than what we have now and show that people can and do drive normally with the same reaction times then I will listen.Clover

            • No, Clover, the principle is exactly the same – you’re just too dense (apparently) to grasp it. You and millions just like you. And that’s why this nation is becoming a lawless nation.

              The principle is, simply: Is it justifiable to infringe on a man’s liberty (his right to be free from arbitrary searches, for instance) not because of anything he specifically has done or is even suspected of having done – but because “someone” (anyone, potentially) might have done something?

              That is the justification used to defend sobriety checkpoints.

              The same justification can – and will – be used to justify random searches of homes, too. It is exactly what happened in Boston a few weeks ago. The homeowners had not done anything illegal, nor were they seven suspected of having done anything illegal. Yet cops barged into their homes, without warrants, with guns – because it was theoretically possible that the man they were looking for might have been in any of those houses.

              Just as anyone on the road at any given time might be a drunk driver.

              Logic, Clover. A = B means B = A.

          • Clover, my driving was to hold a steady speed greater than the traffic to my right while remaining within a single lane.

            Why don’t you try what the SUV driver did to a cop? Why don’t you try what any of the drivers you defend to a cop?

            Eric you do not get it! Searching a house is far far different than checking to see if someone is safe to be on the road.

            No, it’s not. In another discussion forum ages ago a self identified cop argued the home was different. However I would then produce news story after news story showing it wasn’t. That difference isn’t principled Clover, it’s just a feeling, an opinion that it is different. All it takes is a little time and people will accept police entering their homes at any time of the cops’ choosing.

            Back in 1982 the idea of checkpoints in the USA was unthinkable soviet like behavior. But they figured out how to manipulate emotions of people like you Clover so now we have them. They’ll do the same to enter homes. They’ve started the process already.

          • Clover as a prisoner in Auschwitz as he’s being herded into a gas chamber, “I don’t know what it is that I’ve done, but I surely must deserve this.”

          • BrentP – I made that point in an earlier post. I’m just doing the flipside, and showing that Clover is nothing more than an obedient little tool of the state. Or, more appropriately: a useful idiot, which was how the Bolshevik leaders privately referred to their followers as. It doesn’t really matter on which side he sits.

      • You’re missing the point. There should never have been a confrontation between the driver and the police in the first place. There was no good reason for pulling the guy over.

        • Hi Myles,

          I’ve tried to explain that concept to Clover probably 13 times in this context alone. He just doesn’t get it. Cannot conceive how anyone could possibly object to being stopped by a cop for any reason. Why not just obey “the law,” he says?

        • Myles, crossing 3 lanes of traffic and as Eric said not even using a turn signal is not any type of normal driving where I live! If you want anything goes driving there are places in India and Russia for that! Move there!Clover

          • “crossing 3 lanes of traffic […] not even using a turn signal”

            Oh God, the horror, the horror!

            Happens all the time: smack dab in the middle of the unitedstates. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times in the South, and out West too.

            Guess what.
            Every time I’ve seen it,… nothing happens.

            No injury.
            No wreck.
            If they were lucky, no ticket.

            Seems to me, cops and Clovers are just miffed because they weren’t notified in advance.
            It’s a control issue.
            …And they can’t handle the unexpected.

            In the background a Clover robot is saying, “I MUST HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL and POWER! How DARE anyone deny me!”

          • Clover –

            Crossing three lanes of traffic without signaling – as such – presents a problem…. how? What if no other traffic was in the vicinity?

            You imply that other drivers were cut off, or somehow endangered. But this does not necessarily follow.

            Do you see?

            This is another case in point of your inability to separate out a mere violation of statute and a genuinely harmful to others wrong.

            It’s not “anything goes” – your hysterics. It’s about exercising judgment – and leaving people alone if their judgments don’t cause harm. Whether you personally would judge a given situation differently – and act differently – is irrelevant. It’s not about likes and dislikes. It’s about harm – and not causing harm. If no harm has been done, why hassle people?

            Here’s an example: Almost every day, I “run” the stop sign that’s at the “T” junction of our road and the main road. That is, I do not come to a complete stop, if there is no traffic coming. As I approach the “T” to make my usual right-hand turn, I look to the left and check to see whether any other cars are coming. The visibility is such that I can see for a good quarter mile and thus, I know for a certainty that there is no oncoming traffic and thus, no reason – other than blind obedience to “the law” – to stop completely (and waste gas as well as time).

            Do you fault me for this? Am I driving “unsafely”? Should I receive a ticket? If yes, why?

          • OK Eric. you say flying across three lanes of traffic is OK and not using a turn signal is OK. Is weaving back and forth on the roadway like a drunk might do OK because it did not hurt anyone at the time? How about a drunk that crosses three lanes of traffic? How about driving 120 mph weaving through far slower cars is that OK because it did not hurt anyone at the time?Clover

            Tell us Eric what laws should we still have while driving? How do you determine the difference between what are unsafe drivers and as you say using your right to drive however you feel like type of driving that is OK as long as it does not kill anyone at that time?

            I have heard self proclaimed libertarians say it is OK to drive however fast they want to. I have heard others say there is no such thing as tailgating in their mind. I have heard others say that passing in no passing zones is OK. I have now heard that crossing 3 lanes of traffic is OK and turn signals are optional. I have seen others say it is OK to cut someone off from changing lanes in front of them because they used their horn and sped up and pushed the front of their car next to the rear of a car or semi to block them! I have seen others go into a fury when someone is only driving 15 mph over the limit in a middle lane!

            Eric should we let drivers drive like places in India where the requirement is for easy to bolt on fenders and other parts because accidents happen so often?

            • Clover –

              I did not say “…flying across three lanes of traffic is OK and not using a turn signal is OK.”

              More hysterics – and dishonesty – from you.

              I wrote that such actions are not necessarily dangerous. For instance, if no other cars are in the area. In that case, yes, it is ok to not use a turn signal and to cross multiple lanes. After all, who could possibly be harmed?

              Your position is that anyone who transgresses any statute is – by definition – guilty of having caused a harm. I find this absurd, idiotic. Because it’s demonstrably and obviously not true. I gave you the example of my not always stopping at the stop sign near our place – when it’s clear there’s no traffic in the area. No harm done or even possibly done. Why should I be punished – or feel I have committed a wrong? A stop sign is not an omniscient deity. “The law” (man-made statutes) is not necessarily anything more worthy of reverence than a Cracker Jack box’s cartoons. Yet a cop could give me a ticket – threaten me with his gun – if he witnessed me fail to come to a complete stop. Even though no other cars are around – even if it’s physically impossible for my failing to stop completely to have resulted in harm to anyone. That’s your world, Clover. A world of arbitrary power lorded over people who’ve done nothing to harm or even conceivably threaten harm to anyone.

              The one objective standard, Clover, is harm done. That’s the beauty of it. No hassling people over legalisms and pedantry – which is tyrannical. Only hold them responsible when they have done something to be held responsible for.

          • Every time I see Clover comment on what someone else has said I am reminded of this;

            A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

            -Bertrand Russell

            Apparently Bert had to deal with the cloverish too.

          • clover, give us an in-depth review of driving techniques in India and Russia. I don’t think I’m quite “up” on them since the driving videos I’ve seen from Russia show people who know what they’re doing. I doubt people in India want to take too many chances with their hard-earned vehicles but I’ll admit I just don’t know for a fact. Please, enlighten us. Don’t get your panties in a wad, just the facts please.

          • Eightsouthman if you want to know what traffic is like in India and Russia then go to youtube. There are dozens of examples. In many places the drivers to not follow lanes, signs, or anything you might find in the USA. There accident rate is probably 50 to 100 times higher than where I live.Clover

            You are a joke Eric. You always bring up that a cop is threatening you with his gun! Tell us what percent of traffic stops the cop pulls his gun on you? I am waiting. You say that a cop will give you a ticket for rolling through a stop sign in nowheresville when no one is around? How is he going to give you a ticket when he is not around? Explain that one!Clover

            I just don’t get it Eric and I never will. You say that drivers should be able to do anything and we should let them go. You say that cops stop people when there are no other vehicles around? Tell me why a cop would be wasting his time in such a place? There are millions of cases where cars are endangering others and breaking laws. You always bring up the hypothetical that almost never happens and pound on it post after post after post.

            • Arghh!

              You … cannot read!

              I never said – ever! – that “drivers should be able to do anything and we should let them go.”

              I said – Jesus Christ! – that drivers should be able to go about their business unless they’ve caused harm to someone.

              I devoted several posts to carefully explaining the concept – the difference between transgressing against a statute and causing actual harm.

              It is not possible to have a discussion with you, Clover, because you’re illiterate as well as unintelligent.

          • Clover just wants to win the argument, not understand or raise his IQ. Clover, just go back to downloading your Communist porn. It’s all your infantile mind understands. Hope your mum catches you.

          • OK Eric you now say do not stop someone unless they are causing someone harm? Explain what you definition of harm is? Is harm what you call slowing you down by 2 mph? I guess anything else you allow! Most laws that are broken usually do not cause anyone harm unless they hit or kill someone. At the same time it increases your chances of being hit or killed by hundreds or thousands of time! Clover

            What it comes down to is that I say that causing someone harm is increasing the danger to another person significantly above the norm. Your definition of harm is not allowing you to drive 30 mph over the speed limit if you feel like it! I would say by law my definition is the correct one!

            • Clover,

              I do not “now say” (sic) that people have a right to be left alone unless they’ve caused harm. I have always said so. Stop pretending as though I hadn’t always so argued. You repeatedly set up a straw man – that I advocate “doing anything I please” – which I do not. I have always included the caveat, “provided no one else is harmed.” You always conveniently ignore that – and emote hysterically about positions I have never taken. It is infantile – and dishonest.

              My definition of harm? It is self-evident. My actions either have – or have not – resulted in some tangible injury to the person or property of another human being.

              It’s a clear, objective standard.

              I have caused no one any harm by (for example) failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign – if there is no other traffic in the vicinity. And I have caused no one any harm by failing to signal, if there is no other traffic in the vicinity.

              I advocate using judgment – one’s brain – not blind obedience to “the law.” If there is traffic present, then of course I stop and wait until it is safe to proceed. If there is traffic present, of course I signal.

              But why punish me for not stopping – or signaling – when it is impossible (no other traffic in the vicinity) for me to have caused any harm thereby?

              You can argue that a law has been broken – but that is another thing entirely. You can also try to argue that the principle that “the law” must always be obeyed trumps any consideration of actual harm done. It’s a silly position, but you can take it.

              You write: My “…definition of harm is not allowing you to drive 30 mph over the speed limit if you feel like it! ”

              An idiotic statement. I’ve deconstructed it so many times I see no point in doing so again. Suffice to say that driving faster than you happen to like (or “the law” decrees) says nothing, as such, about whether the person is driving competently.

              Dealing with you is like trying to convince mud to form itself into a brick.

          • CloverWe agree to disagree Eric. You keep bringing up that you get ticketed when no one is around. The policeman needed to be around to give you a ticket! There is one reason why they ticket or give you a warning for something that is not endangering others at the time. It is to keep you from driving the same way when there are other cars around. Most people if they do not signal or drive correctly when there are no other cars around will also not signal or drive correctly when other cars around. You have proven that you do not drive correctly when other cars are around! Tell us Eric what gives you or others the right to endanger others? What gives you the right to shoot a gun into a crowd and either hit someone or not but you say you should be let go if you do not end up hitting someone?

            Your being lucky is not a case for you to do whatever you feel like. Other drivers that have driven the same way as you have killed people!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here