Imagine being empowered by the state to threaten people with murderous violence over hurt feelings.
Or for pretty much any reason at all. Without having to worry much – if at all – about ever being held criminally responsible for such abuse.
To say that such a policy is dangerous is like saying there’s a slight problem in the Titanic’s hold, after it hit the iceberg.
It is catastrophic – as great a threat to our liberties as the gushing-in seawater was to the souls aboard the doomed liner.
In this video, a man who flipped The Bird to an armed government worker finds himself in mortal peril because he hurt the AGW’s feelings. Not because any law was broken – much less any harm done to persons or property, the only moral justification for interfering with anyone’s liberty.
Nonetheless, the affronted AGW uses his government-issued car and his government-issued gun and the government-sanctioned threat of murderous violence to coerce compliance to “pull over” – a soft-sounding euphemism (like the “shared responsibility payment” under Obamacare) for something as hard as it gets: A government thug waylaying a peaceful human being, using all the just-enumerated threats, overt and implied, that he will be killed (ultimately) if he does not obey.
Some reading this will be taken aback at the language above – will consider the foregoing a hyperbolic statement. But it is a statement of fact. Had the man – who did nothing illegal – declined to obey the illegal orders of the AGW and attempted merely to leave and go about his business – asserted his right to liberty – he would certainly have found himself the object of murderous violence.
Murderous violence is implicit (and often, explicit) in every interaction one of us has with one of them.
We are quite literally at their mercy. Physically as well as legally. We are required to submit and obey. And if we do not – even when it is clear we’ve broken no law and that personal law is being enforced upon us – then they are legally empowered to resort use murderous violence and we are legally debarred from defending ourselves against it.
Thus, a power-tripping Praetorian in a government-issued costume, with a government-issued car and a government-issued pistol can – at his whim – “pull us over” or interrupt our travels when on foot – and we’re obliged to bend knee.
If we decline to “pull over” or continue waking . we invite a roadside or curbside execution. This is no exaggeration. It has happened, continues to happen – and will continue to happen, until enough of us have finally had enough.
This AGW was annoyed by The Bird – even though there is no statute prohibiting the giving of it, whether to an AGW or anyone else. It may not be nice to so gesture, but nice (or not) isn’t the issue.
Legality is. Also morality.
At one time, within the orbit of living memory – it was both implicit and explicit that cops (this was before they morphed into AGWs) had to have a legally valid reason before they could use force, whether overt or implied, to defrock and citizens of his liberty. Cops were restrained by this generally accepted expectation – and citizens emboldened to assert their liberty – you haven’t got anything on me was the language used.
Not anymore. We live in fear because AGWs are a law unto themselves now. Deference and submission are expected, demanded – and enforced.
Non-consensual, illegal waylayings of the sort depicted above are now the routine drill for affronting the Authority of AGWs.And it routine because there are no consequences when an AGW is caught en flagrante abusing a citizen.
Abuse defined as enforcing personal law, as in the video aabove. Or, this one:
(News story here.)
It’s easy enough to understand, if you imagine someone not an AGW chasing down a person who flipped The Bird (or did some other thing they happened not to like) and used the implicit/explicit threat of murderous violence embodied in a visibly carried (whether holstered or not) firearm to waylay them and subject them to a harangue and a short-term kidnapping that lasted just as long as they felt like it, based on the duress they could impose because of the fact of the gun and the implied threat it might be used.
If a non-AGW id exactly what this AGW did, the non-AGW would be prosecuted (rightly) for multiple felonies – and the man would have had the right to attempt to escape and (if the psychopath pursued him) to defend himself.
But AGWs are different, special.
One hopes that in time they will no longer be so regarded – or so treated.
. . .
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.
I’m not sure what world and when you grew up, but giving a cop the finger in Chicago 40 years ago you would of not only gotten pulled over but possibly popped in the mouth, or then they all of a sudden found something on you.
The rule was to respect the cops and still clear of them. The last thing you wanted to do was draw their attention if you didn’t need help, etc.
I get a little tired of the “phone” camera era of constantly antagonizing people into a confrontation. Everyone wants the cops to leave them alone, well, how about leaving the cops alone too.
The cop said flipping him off was “not normal”. and thats why he pulled him over. That is where the police officer really made his mistake. In this world flipping people off, cops, old ladies, mothers with cars full of kids is not only normal, but yelling, screaming and waving guns at them is also.
Enough already. This snowflake needs to put his dick back in his pants, shave that pussy hair off his chin and get a job so he has better things to do.
“Respect” AGWs? Why, exactly?
They are armed tax feeders who abuse people who’ve harmed no one – merely by drawing their salaries from unwilling victims who are forced to pay them. Plus the abuse of people as part of their “job.”
I don’t consider that worthy of respect. Why do you?
And you miss the point entirely – which is that these “law enforcement” goons routinely ignore the law. Brazenly flout it – and are never held accountable. Whereas we are always admonished that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and expected to obey at all times.
This AGW knows perfectly well that flipping the bird is not illegal and so it’s state sanctioned thuggery for him to respond as he did.
While an ordinary citizen has every right to respond with a hearty **** you in return, no one has the right to use force against someone merely for insulting them and certainly not an armed government worker. The AGW has a government-issued gun and government authority – which the ordinary citizen does not. The citizen cannot defend himself against the AGW; he is under duress. It is not only an unfair fight – it is illegal for him to fight back at all.
I assume by your handle you disdain “libs.” But your disdain ought to be reserved for authoritarian collectivists – whether liberal or “conservative.”
Steer clear of them as you would any other criminal, thug, mafioso, etc.
The video recording of cops while standing up to them is due to the difference between what government really is and what people are told it is. Having the reality on video is must for otherwise a person is just another “conspiracy theorist” or “ufo nut”.
That’s a LIE, I grew up in Chicago 40 years ago and we flipped the cops off all of the time, most did nothing, some smiled and waved. Peddle your BS somewhere else.
Where I live, in a Great Plains state in a town of 12,000, flipping a cop off would RIGHT NOW, not 40 years ago, get you pulled out of your car, beaten up, and hauled to jail for resisting arrest, and a few other charges, especially if there were no witnesses around or at night. You might be lucky and be in an area where too many witnesses are around, but your car or truck better not be seen by a cop again, or you will get the full treatment. And the prosecutor and judge will not be on your side either. Just don’t do it.
Good news / Bad new thing here.
England pretty much seems to have decided to mostly remove the human element from the highway robbery system.
Orwellian of course, but at least the cameras don’t shoot you…..yet.
Eating, drinking, smoking area all paying paper offenses apparently. I wonder if scratching your nose is verboten too.
Certainly a good ploy to get the folks into automated ‘freedom pods’.
One of the many reasons I will soon be leaving this country for my primary get-out foreign destination.
Our Supreme Court will rubber stamp this the same as random road blocks. As in, ‘well, not really constitutional but for the public good’. Rights (converted to privileges) be damned.
The West and the rights and freedoms it used to at least feign respect for, is gone.
Hello Eric. I just read your refreshing, rational and lucid thoughts regarding “ownership”, the parenthesis are of the govt., not mine. I couldn’t find a “reply” button, and these replies grow in length like Jack’s beanstalk, so maybe this will appear at the top of the screen. Your libertarian mindset is mine… we want as little govt. as possible. Brent and Jeremy are probably nice guys but you know that old saying about nice guys. I, personally, will never finish last because I have, at the very least, a view of the big picture. You wrote, “When a man can never truly do as he likes with “his” property, then it is by definition not his property. And when you are compelled to make payments in perpetuity on a piece of property – when there is no chance it will ever be “paid off”- then you are a renter, not an owner.”
Brent & Jeremy want to see the govt. put that in writing and attach a court file number. These boys think govt. is here to serve, be forthright, honest and open. If these boys won’t consider the origins of our American Republic, when people died fighting so we may own our property; unconditional ownership; then it is pointless to converse with such naive and delusional types. While I have your attention, Eric, I cherish your website. I’ve been reading here for years and chime in very seldom, usually to remind people of “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” 2005, when cops were officially let off the leash. I always encounter the blowback, from the apologist sheep, pointing their little hooves at me and chanting, “Yerrrr Baaaad.” The sheep are cute, but damn, are they stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Thank you for the kind words, Tom! It’s you and other readers/participants that make me feel all this is worth getting out of bed in the morning to do.
And, hell – someone’s got to do it, eh? 🙂
Damn right, Eric. And you do it in a big and wonderful way. Let’s all take a moment to reflect upon the actions of one murderous cop named Slager and rejoice there’s at least one less evil psychopath sharing our free air. To those unaware, Slager’s appeal was just refused and he can sit tight another 20 years for murdering Walter Scott. View the string from the taser, count the shots, and wonder why a man inserted with eight bullets won’t follow commands to place his hands behind his back.
“Brent & Jeremy want to see the govt. put that in writing and attach a court file number. These boys think govt. is here to serve, be forthright, honest and open.”
I asked you to back up a specific claim you made. I did it politely. From this simple request, you presume to know what I think, you do not. Nothing in my two posts to you support your conclusion. In fact, in my second post, I make exactly the same argument about ownership that Eric makes. Neither I nor Brent asked for a citation because we think the existence of such would legitimize de facto government ownership (of course, it would not). It is odd that you assume that was the intent.
I don’t know if you read my posts to Douglas about the inherent problems of government police. Here’s the beginning, “I am against government police per se because police work for government, not for us. The interests of politicians and police themselves will always supersede the interests of the public.” How does this jibe with your claim that I “think govt. is here to serve, be forthright, honest and open”.
Both you and Brent have asked to SEE CITATIONS. You want the court case, the government decree, the case numbers? I already said all you have to do is read Senate Resolution no. 62. ” “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” They aren’t referring to only gold. They are referring to ALL PROPERTY. That you keep on asking for further govt. verbiage looks to me like you think govt. is here to serve, above all, be forthright.The fact that I pay a fine to live in a house I designed and built myself, that has never had a mortgage, is proof I don’t own my house. If I don’t pay the fine I’ll be marched out of here at gunpoint. Same goes for my truck. If I don’t pay the fines the item will be removed from my possession and sold to a compliant tax payer. I don’t own the truck. I do know what you think… and I think you’re going to keep on writing, demanding citations when I already told you, “dream on.” If you don’t see the big picture then you’re too tiresome for conversation. Tell Brent what I said. And, you can phone me up if you want and I’ll tell you in real time.
Step back and read what I have written. None of it supports your assertion that I “think govt. is here to serve, above all, be forthright”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason I asked for a citation is because you claimed it exists. No, you don’t know what I think and your assertion that you do is bizarre. I asked for a citation once, because you claimed it existed. Everything I have written since then has been an attempt to point out that your assumptions about me are unfounded and incorrect. Your assertion that I will “keep on writing, demanding citations when I already told you, “dream on” is entirely unsupported, and contradicted, by what I actually wrote. Ironically, we probably have a lot in common but you insist that I am part of the deluded GovCo worshipping crowd that you correctly deride, I am not.
Brent and I have been posting here for years. If you do a comment search you will find nothing to support your characterization of us (asking you to back up a claim you made doesn’t count). What you will find, from me at least, is entirely contrary to your claim. I think that government is an inherently illegitimate institution. It is born in conquest and maintained through force, fraud and theft. I think that the claim of legally limited government, is a contradiction in terms. Any entity that asserts the “right” to be the sole arbiter of its’ own actions relative to the law exists, by definition, outside of and above the law.
Anyway, if you’re interested in “starting over”, I live in Santa Fe and would be happy to meet for a beer at 2nd Street.
Jeremy, if you read my several comments this week I NEVER claimed a citation exists. You and Brent keep asking for one and I’ve told you more than once it doesn’t exist. And why should it? Does government need to repeat its dictates? Once was enough. Since 1933, its a tradition, the State owns ALL PROPERTY. We don’t own shit and I’m living the reality. The only item I’ve referred to is Senate Resolution no. 62 which proclaimed all property belongs to the State. After the Fed took over printing the confetti, a debt couldn’t be cancelled, in fact, it is compounded. Anything you pay for using Federal Reserve notes will not discharge the debt. The Fed regards all U.S. citizens as debtors and that’s why you NEVER want to be a 14th Amendment creature. Because the FERN doesn’t discharge the debt, this condition has lead to the violent practice of civil forfeiture with wallets of cash, wristwatches, jewelry, clothing, cars, game toys, big screen TVs, you name it… everything is suspicious loot you can’t prove ownership of. Citations?? …..”we don’t need no stinking citations.” Seen the Treasure of Sierra Madre lately? Maybe we’ll catch up somewhere if you live nearby. Give me a call.
In other words it is just more magical between the lines fringe on the flag sovereign citizen crap. The sort of crap that the government and its operators want so anyone who makes a serious argument can be shouted down with ridicule.
If memory serves you began this debate by making a De jure claim about car titles. You have also made many De facto claims, which most people here accept. De jure, by definition, means that it is recognized in statute. So, making a De jure claim means that there is some statute, or a part of a statute that can be cited. The existence of such a statute in no way legitimizes the governments claim to ownership.
I don’t think anyone commenting disagrees with your De facto observations about government ownership.
I believe that is an accurate description of the facts.
There really is no reason for us to disagree.
No one here considers the government’s lawerly sleights of hand legitimate.
Your “resolution 62” is only a bit better than me saying something is in the federal register. It’s not how cites are done.
The tax or confiscate system is to achieve an effective state. It’s an old game like when they made pot effectively illegal by requiring a tax stamp they never sold. It’s a workaround because they don’t have true ownership. Yet. These games are not needed if we don’t own anything. They are needed to boss us around and keep us producing if we do.
When the rental economy is in full bloom that’s when they’ll own everything.
What, to you, would be “true ownership?” How about if you don’t pay the tax fines the government confiscates your possessions and sells all of it to another compliant user. Would that be true ownership? Just imagine if THAT scenario should EVER unfold!! OMG. Would THAT be true ownership? I don’t give a rat’s ass how “cites” are done. Neither does the govt. They take your stuff, plain and simple, and sell it to the compliant “users” and if you put up a fight you’ll be taken, too. You are comments are pointless and your ignorance is staggering. But keep on writing. I’m over and out.
How appropriate is it that the pig came to represent the animal that deemed itself superior to the rest in Animal Farm, and also came to represent police in the 1960’s, pre-AGW?
It could just be coincidence. But I’m beginning to doubt that.
Doesn’t really matter of the state ownership is de jure so long as they maintain the de facto capability to take your property and keep it with the additional possibility that they can also deprive you of your life should you dispute them.
Private property such as we have only exists for liability purposes where you pay damages and tax calculation where they damage you in a predictable enough way to prevent insurrection and build acceptance.
Amazing! A North Carolina judge has refused the appeal of Michael Slager, the cop who gunned down Walter Scott in June 2015. Slager is going to sit tight for 20 more years. This is a rare moment when a cop can be punished. They have to be filmed abusing and killing the innocent. Slager emptied his revolver into Scott’s back as he attempted to run away. Then he walked up and dropped his taser gun next to the body to make it look like this is where Scott attempted to wrestle the thing from his hands. Cops do this every day but they are rarely filmed doing it. I look forward to further comments from the apologists describing how tough it is being a cop. https://www.wsoctv.com/news/south-carolina/south-carolina-officer-loses-appeal-over-fatal-shooting-conviction/901568272
Cheerful news – thanks for posting that!
Also: I was listening to a news report earlier today about the most dangerous jobs – in terms of the potential you’ll be seriously hurt or killed. It’s not AGW.
It’s commercial fisherman…
Cops aren’t even in the top twenty most dangerous jobs. Neither are firemen.
All types of construction workers (starting with roofers), iron workers, loggers, fishermen, farmers, ranchers, maintenance workers, garbagemen, truckers, airplane pilots, even being a salesman are more dangerous jobs than being a cop.
Every cop in the U.S. should be tested for steroid use at least twice a year.
I’ll go to bedrock: Let’s get rid of cops, police and “law enforcement” generally. Replace with community-based peace-keepers paid for by the voluntary contributions of the people living in that community.
There is no reason why policing should be provided by government. Private security forces can do a much better job in every way.
I think so, too – in re private security. The key being these would be protectors of property and persons, not “law enforcement.” It is very interesting to me that the foregoing term came into general currency right around the same time that cops morphed into AGWs and things got completely out of hand.
Today’s AGWs are literally worse than the East German Stasi – and even they didn’t dress in the Hut! Hut Hut! couture of today’s AGWs and didn’t murder people merely for affronting their Authority. One actually had to do something, usually, to justify the hail of bullets.
The police slogan is “to protect and serve” but the courts have ruled that the government police have no duty to protect or to serve. Most people don’t even know that. Oh, and why do police carry guns? Most people would say that it has something to do with that “protect and serve” function but no the reality is that police carry guns to protect THEM – not us. When you have a private security force, you don’t worry about them shooting you, the employer.
I loath the Prison Industrial complex, otherwise known as the criminal justice system to my core. Especially the AGWs with a badge. To me they are like junkyard guard dogs that attack on command regardless of the target. Absent a handler they attack indiscriminately. Super sized egos with a blood lust.
I agree with you Eric that these junk yard dogs are a dangerous menace, but I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone outside of your echo chamber with this video. Like a punk ass kid who pokes the junkyard dog through the chain link fence with a stick, it’s really no surprise when the dog snarls and it’s hard to have sympathy for the kid when the dog jumps the fence and mauls him.
I think you could find a lot of better videos to make your point where the AGWs react without all the provocation.
Despite all the very vocal “hero” talk, I find that attitudes have already changed markedly – especially among white, middle-class people (me among them) most of whom had at least a neutral attitude toward AGWs but now generally view them with fear and even loathing. They might say “yes, officer” but they know they are being mulcted by a revenue collector; the scales are falling from their eyes – or already have.
It’s become obvious that Officer Friendly (if he ever existed) has been replaced by a dangerous goon trained to regard any of us as an enemy.
Keep in mind, the average Soviet hate the NKVD too – but participated in the public state funerals and all the rest of it, because they had to.
One day, they didn’t have to.
That day will dawn again.
The argument here isn’t about legalities. It’s about common sensibilities. If a person wants to scuba dive in shark infested waters, he ought to be free to make that choice, too. But he should also keep in mind he’s in the shark’s world – and ought not to expect the shark to make accommodations. – Eric Peters
Yes, but you miss a key difference: Free people should not have to accommodate the government.
I know I’m beating a dead horse, but I have to take another run at it. if you are preaching to your choir, this video of a dude flipping off cops to provoke a reaction probably works. On the other hand if you are actually interested in winning the hearts and minds over to your way of thinking of the people who still see these thugs in uniform as heroes, probably not so much.
For one thing, jeering people and calling them clovers is not exactly employing the logic and reason that libertarians are supposed to be known for, and it’s a huge turn off for those who might agree with those that you are jeering. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are very good at making your case. With that skill there is no need for taking the low road. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
It’s easy for most people to excuse bad behavior in others when it’s obvious that they’ve been antagonized into it. Talk all you want about holding cops to a higher standard, but it’s not hard to imagine a lot of people hoping for this dickhead to get tazed. I see it as a grave tactical error to use a video of a guy acting like a douchebag to make your point for you and it’s probably not very helpful to others who are trying to fight the same battles.
The point is we shouldn’t have to fear flipping off an AGW. In fact, we do – and that ought to concern anyone thinking straight. These are armed government workers. Not ordinary people. They have guns and the power of the government; the fact that they routinely abuse this power with impunity is the problem – and this is a case in point.
Bear in mind, too, that people generally flip the bird at an AGW with reason. The AGW has “pulled over” a hapless victim; manning a “checkpoint,” etc. It is not a random, gratuitous insult.
And it is a worthy one. These AGWs crave respect as much as they demand deference – but are less deserving of either than a common street criminal, who at least doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a criminal – and against whom you may defend yourself.
AGWs should be treated with contempt – as pariahs. I don’t consort with thieves and bullies.
On the Clover Thing: I only resort to it in egregious instances – such as the recent comments to the effect that AGWs “have to put up with” a lot of “stuff.” Or in cases involving repetitive authoritarian collectivism.
Sometimes, shock therapy works – but even if not, it is sometimes just the right thing to do!
“Are you aware that’s not exactly legal”? Nice waffling statement. Used to be – decades ago – an American was respected, such as when you traveled or went to a foreign country. There was an acknowledged position of status. Now, we are expected to cower within the very confines of the leaky borders.
“Disrespecting a cop” can be a fatal error. Sure, it’s not a crime, but it’s still stupid. Doing that to a civilian in a car in the heavily armed area where I live is also very dangerous. “Dead men tell no tales.” Cops are also notorious for lying about reasons for arrests or violence, even murder. They know it, you should too.
Eric’s point is valid but perhaps missing the bigger issue. Pissing off folks with guns (or who may have them, or baseball bats, etc.) is unwise. Many deaths by cops start out innocently enough. But unless you are looking for trouble don’t cause it yourself. This kid was white. If he wasn’t he might have been killed and blamed in some absurd way. Cop cameras, when they aren’t deliberately turned off, have shown this happening at times.
The only traffic court jury I was ever on was about this issue. Some dumb teenager peeled out in a private parking lot in front of an AGW. Ticket issued. When I asked the bailiff to find out if such an “offense” can be ticketed on private property, we got baffle-gab. Because the kid showed up and tried to play lawyer with his “buddy” and didn’t even bring up the jurisdictional issue, we voted “guilty” but assessed the minimum fine. A waste of our afternoon. Don’t throw out common sense even if behaving rudely is “legal.” It is usually a poor choice, cop or not.
“peeled out in a private parking lot”
You consider it “common sense” and morally legitimate to punish him for this?
Are you kidding?
Yes, I get all that – and agree, in terms of practical considerations. But that ought not to dissuade us from seeing (and condemning) the abuses at issue. The imperious sense of entitlement displayed by many AGWs is not just insufferable – it is very dangerous.
People need to recover their senses. These AGWs are just that… AGWs. They are not “heroes” entitled to worship or even any particular deference.
I would have voted NOT GUILTY. And they would have had to pay me off or kill me to change my mind. Period.
Two factors have allowed the traveling American to be held at the mercy of a violent and unrestrained police force. One is a Supreme court case titled Castle Rock v. Gonzalez 2005 which ruled the police have absolutely no duty to serve or protect. Read about this case. What prompted it was hideous, the city of Castle Rock, Colorado would have been sued into oblivion, so for financial protection no cop can be sued unless he’s filmed killing an innocent. THEN you might have a chance. See the death of Walter Scott.
Second factor is embedded within every drivers license issued, in every state. Called the Implied Consent Act, when you place your signature upon a license you have agreed to several pages of pure evil in which you have voluntarily waved every Constitutional right you thought you had. The Act proclaims you gave the State full permission to possess your breath, your saliva, and your body dead or alive. Coupled with the previous SCOTUS case I mentioned, the flying monkeys can do whatever they want and will not be held accountable unless filmed under the most egregious circumstances.
Implied consent: We should have never allowed this to sneak its way into our lives. We almost deserve the abuse from this for being so naive and ignorant.
An Unalienable Right cannot be waived.
An unalienable right cannot be waived INVOLUNTARILY. But also as a matter of precedent, a right cannot be converted to a privilege by mere law, and if the state attempts to do so it may be freely ignored. (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
And the right of travel (properly called liberty)is ancient and comes from nature and nature’s god.
Unfortunately, we do not have law, we have a collection of usurping rulers claiming unlimited power over us.
The thing is the government has successfully convinced the majority of the population it grants the privilege of using an automobile and because of that, it does. And from that the ability to require their permission for any other travel. Perception is reality.
I’ve found it’s practically pointless to try and educate these people. There are so many of them and they trained to ridicule anyone who says otherwise. Even me and I fully accept that motoring is now effectively a privilege granted by government. I just point how they got it and how they leverage it. But then it makes those who believe government naturally has such power start to look foolish so I must be ridiculed too. Hey it’s not my fault government decided to tie a DL to things that aren’t even related to using an automobile.
People no longer realize that before the automobile government couldn’t take power over people’s personal travels. Least not successfully and for long. So things are the way they are.
Part of the problem is the general perception – inculcated by language and custom – that “the government” is a kind of Oz, a being possessed of superior wisdom and so entitled to make decisions for us lesser creatures. I try to get people to consciously grok the fact that “the government” is nothing but other – usually very lesser – people who have titles and hold offices and have acquired power over us. And how did these other people get that power and by what right? How is it that some people get to legally order others about, take their property – and even kill them, if they object and attempt to defend themselves against such affronts?
You are asking the ultimate question when you ask, “How did these other people get that power and by what right?” Asked another way; can a person (A) grant to person (B) a right that person (A) does not have. In other words, if I do not have the right to steal or murder, can I grant that right to my neighbor or a politician. The answer to that question exposes all governments to be illegitimate.
The principle is that groups can neither gain nor lose rights that individuals in that group have.
Hardly anyone questions the hypnotic zombie shuffle in which you buy a new car, you are given the Title of Origin, then you go to the nearest Motor Vehicle office and hand over the true title to the car in exchange for a State Certificate of Title. Now the State OWNS YOUR CAR. You are the mere user. You may sell the car to someone else but he’s never going to own it either. “World Peace” wrote “an unalienable Right cannot be waived.” Sorry dude… yes it can. When you unwittingly exchange your right to tradel into a paid-for privilege you’ve waived that Right. When you give your care to the State in exchange for their fabricated certificate, you waived your Right to own that car. Adam Kokesh interviewed me three years ago talking about this stuff. Take a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVu5S2ISELo&frags=pl%2Cwn
Eric, I wish you had an edit button so I could correct misspellings. What I just wrote looks like shit.
Well, we kind of do have one – but only for people with Admin access. It’s a WordPress thing. But, rest assured, if we ever get rolling fast enough – if I can ever afford to get a custom-designed site and a full-time computer guy to run the thing – we will have that feature and many others, besides!
No, the state does not own your car because of the title and certificate of origin. I’ve looked at that multiple times over the years and found nothing like what is claimed.
Brent, I don’t know what you’ve been looking at multiple times now, because, in fact, the State DOES OWN YOUR CAR. They have the original title, or MSO, the Manufacturers Statement of Origin, and that is the true title to the car. Also, if you watch the video I provided, they own my house, too. If I don’t pay the yearly property tax fine I’ll be marched out of here at gun point and they will sell the house to another “user.” Read what that term means….
There used to be a word that appeared in dictionaries long ago but is difficult to find anymore. This is from the original Webster’s 1828:
“ALLODIUM: Freehold estate; land which is the absolute property of the owner; real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feudal. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the King; but in the United States most lands are allodial.”
All of that changed on March 9, 1933 when President Franklin Roosevelt declared the United States bankrupt by and through executive order nos. 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260. Then on April 26, 1933 came Senate Resolution no. 62 which reads in part: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Actually, the Federal Reserve owns everything. The Fed holds the bankrupt United States in receivership. The Fed recruited the tattered remnants of our government to enforce the terms of the bankruptcy. Here’s the deal Brent… you are NOT ALLOWED to own anything. Got it? You were born bankrupt. And just like any bankruptcy the debtors are not free until the debt is paid. Because the Fed holds the bankrupt United States Inc. in receivership, AND the Fed is printing the only currency in which you could pay anyone anything, AND this currency doesn’t pay off a debt but compounds it… this is slavery perfected. We are ALL down on the plantation picking cotton. Until people awake from the delusion that we are free then nothing will change.
The certificate of origin is only meaningful to get a state bureaucrat to issue a title. Show me some legal definitions and actual law that brings the state into ownership of your vehicles through this process. I have yet to find it so you show it to me.
I am tired of people like yourself who blather a bunch of stuff that I am then supposed to waste my time going through. Make a proper case with proper cites that show what you claim these documents do. Each one of you has a different set of documents to look and parse and I am tired of doing it. Make a proper case and I’ll consider it.
In a very real sense, Tom’s right. Regardless of title, our ownership is more like a conditional use permit. We are forced to register and plate and insure the car (assuming we intend to use it) and (in my state) are compelled to pay property tax on it, just the same as on “our” homes and land. Stop paying the tax and you find out right quick who really owns your stuff…
Thanks, Eric. Frankly, I’m quite tired of explaining our conditional/financial holding of property to people who will never realize the one-way street we are on. They are asking and paying permission to do everything imaginable and they still don’t see the peculiarity of the situation. If you don’t pay permission, the govt. steps in, takes the property away and sells it to a compliant user. If I shove a gun in your face and steal your car that’s grand theft auto. When a cop does the same thing then it’s hunky dory. Who OWNS the property? Guess….
As you know and have become convinced of since I first uttered it here I believe that the so-called “elite” is moving things to a rental economy where they own everything and we own nothing.
If we presently owned nothing there would be no need for rental economy. They don’t really own everything there is just the effective condition that is caused through taxation seizure laws etc. But it’s effective, not absolute as Tom claims.
This is why I cannot find any such absolute declaration officially. It’s done -effectively- as the consequence of several conditions. As such it can only be exercised when they can get away with it without causing a revolt.
A written executive order, law, whathaveyou that expressly claimed ownership of all property would cause a revolt. Furthermore it would allow a socialist outside of the so-called elite’s control to take their wealth.
That’s why it doesn’t exist except as an effective state for those selected. A condition where those with sufficient wealth can put up a fight and prevent it but most can’t.
To be more clear, for instance civil asset forfeiture. You own your stuff but the government can take it and then you have to fight to get it back.
Government runs this scam on people who they think can’t fight back and whom society in general won’t be defending. A 0.01%er won’t be chosen for some highwayman action like this and neither will be someone who is in high social standing that the masses will side with.
If government had absolute ownership there would be no reason for these charades. They would point to said law, executive order, whathaveyou and just take stuff. No need to make sure the victim was someone that wouldn’t be able to trouble for them.
You can’t find an absolute declaration that the State owns all property? It’s called Senate Resolution no. 62 and it occurred on April 26, 1933. Wait a second… I already provided this same information just above!! Call off your search, Brent. There’s the absolute declaration. The reason why America fought a revolution back in the 1770’s was because George III owned EVERYTHING. You had to fill out permits and get licenses and ask permission to do everything. Anything you held could be stolen away as punishment. Sound a bit familiar regarding present day circumstances? The Federal Reserve paid off Woodrow Wilson so he would endorse the Federal Reserve Act. He admitted it was the biggest mistake of his life. The Fed orchestrated the Great Depression. The Fed owns all property and the State is the pack of flying monkeys that enforces the conditions of the bankruptcy. I’m trying to be polite but you are really quite dense regarding all of this. You know Brent, I’m tired of people like yourself who blather a bunch of stuff that I am then supposed to waste my time going through. Actually, you’ve presented nothing at all… you’ve got nothing to show.
As I’m certain you already know, the Communist Manifesto prescribes heavy taxes on income and property – in order to render the concept of property (in terms of individual ownership) an effective nullity.
That’s now the case in America, where the only material things any of us can claim ownership of in a meaningful sense are the small (generally worthless) items we are allowed to do with as we like, without being taxed as the condition of retaining conditional use privileges.
The single most important reform – toward the re-establishment of liberty in this country – would be allodial title in real estate. A man who has paid in full for his land/home ought to own it, free of any financial obligation to anyone – including the government.
Such a man would be almost unimaginably free. He would not have to generate income through the system – in order to pay the endless annual property taxes. He could simply.. live, beholden to none.
And that is why it’s not allowed.
Tom, Stop it with the vague cites that don’t mean anything and require me to do a hunt then read through what could be hundreds of pages. You cite it properly or it’s just BS.
I am tired of people such as yourself and your half-assed word of mouth hard to even check methods. Just tired of it. I don’t have the time. Cite it properly. “Resolution 62, 1933” is meaningless by itself. I did spend a few minutes searching and after weeding out all sorts of “resolution 62″s I found one from the 1930s on gold contracts. It’s long. It’s not my job to prove your assertions, it’s yours. So prove it without me needing to take three hours out of my life.
The federal reserve paid off Woodrow? The federal reserve didn’t exist prior to Woodrow signing it into existence.
I’m not the one who came in here making an argument that we own nothing presently. YOU DID TOM. YOU DID. Make a proper cited argument instead of sovereign citizen word of mouth crap. If you expect me to believe it and repeat it then you have to make your case.
@Tom Hyland, no use in arguing with that brentp character because he knows EFT about EFT.
Thanks for the reminder, Anon. I’m sure Brent will read this anyway but for now I’m just talking to you. For a guy who pretends to spend hours researching it hasn’t enlightened him whatsoever. The Federal Reserve began way before President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. It’s essentially the same families and they were at it back when President Jackson sent them packing. I don’t know how abundantly clear it can be when the government declared all property belongs to the state. For a cripple FDR was a VERY frisky guy. He became President on Sunday March 4, 1933 and the following Friday he declared the US insolvent. Senate Resolution No. 62 occurred in April, which FDR signed off on. Talk about the first 100 days!! Holy shit. The Fed orchestrated the bank scare of 1907 and then the stock market crash of October 1929. These fuckers were coming in and they WON’T LEAVE. Audit the Fed? The biggest house of cards ever assembled would crush the the top tier of the 1% in its demise. If Brent wants be a worthwhile participant in an adult conversation he should read “End The Fed” by Ron Paul. The evil scheme which is the Fed is presented in a concise tome about 150 pages in length. “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by Edward Griffin is over 500 pages but the most comprehensive history of how We The People lost our nation right out from under our feet. Whiners like Brent need to either study up or shut up.
“I don’t know how abundantly clear it can be when the government declared all property belongs to the state.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong but your claim is not that the government, in effect, owns all our property, but that it has official legal title to our property. Brent is asking for a citation. In other words, can you cite the specific passage(s) of resolution no. 62 that supports this claim. I would be very interested to see this as well.
Jeremy… Brent… you want to read a government manifesto describing the specifics of our bankruptcy and the govt. takeover of all property?? Dream on. I am also quite convinced that we have no Constitutional Rights… the govt. simply pretends we do in order to save face when necessary. But you both are quite naive thinking there must be EXACT CITATIONS with NUMBERS attached describing our current slave status. When the bankruptcy took effect and our currency became the green confetti printed by the Fed, the govt. had to scramble to define how debts could be paid. Gold, which used to be the foundation of American money, was outlawed if held by the People. The Fed knows that gold is real money but nobody has seen the inside of Ft. Knox since the Fed took over. If the govt. “has official legal title to our property” then that means WE DON’T. And all property “used”… that’s what No. 62 has decreed we are… “mere users”… all property is conditional, regulated and taxed and if you don’t comply another “user” gets to use that property. We don’t own anything. Got it? This isn’t how America began. But this is how it’s been since 1933. You want further citations? Where the government describes your prison walls to you? Dream on. Or… I recommended a couple of books to read. Learn what the Fed is. Ron Paul is far more eloquent than I regarding the topic.
You entirely misunderstand the nature of my observation. I have read all of the books, and many more, that you recommend.
Whoever has ultimate control of property is, in effect, the owner. I don’t disagree with that analysis. You made a different claim.
I think the main point here is that ownership, as a de facto (real world) thing is defined by control. De jure (legally) we may have a title or deed, but our ownership is a fiction because we are required to make never-ending payments of money to the government in order to retain possession of things like a home/land or vehicle and this same government overtly claims – and enforces – its superior right to decree how the property in question shall be used by us. We are required to abide by the government’s terms and conditions, just as if we had signed a rental contract.
When a man can never truly do as he likes with “his” property, then it is by definition not his property. And when you are compelled to make payments in perpetuity on a piece of property – when there is no chance it will ever be “paid off”- then you are a renter, not an owner.
No you need to properly cite your case. I found a resolution 62 from the 1930s. It was about gold contracts and how to settle them due to FDR’s banning of private ownership of gold.
The banksters of course existed before the 1913 federal reserve act but the federal reserve itself did not. It came into being with the act. That’s basic history.
No more sovereign citizen word of mouth library of congress cites. Do it properly. Point to the full document and the relevant passages by which you get that meaning.
Yes, the top wants to own everything but they aren’t there yet. They have erected many aspects to get what is important about ownership, control, but they don’t have it yet. That’s why they are still working hard with things like agenda 2030 and the rental economy.
They are still working to take ownership, more than control.
As a kid I started driving at the age of 12. My parents bought a farm a couple years earlier but since my dad was employed full-time the necessity of farm work fell to me, chores I loved. This led to my driving the pickup just like everyone else except I had no license. Not a problem since the county sheriff was a friend and could care less and my parents who simply lived from paycheck to paycheck weren’t hassled by the DPS because my dad was well liked and the occifer’s kids were practically clothed by the hand me downs of my family.
I had no idea how much the occifer hated me for drinking my sports car 55 Chevy pickup till I turned 14 and got my license at which point he made up a charge of running a stop sign to ticket me.
I was well aware of his presence but thought nothing about it since I was at the local cotton gin picking up a load of feed. I left there through their big yard and drove to the hog pens and started filling feeders. I was startled to find 2 of these predators pulling up behind my pickup, especially since we’d had a big rain and they had to use my deep tracks in the mud to get there. It was a definingmoment in my life as I was ticketed for having run a stop sign, a complete and total lie.
That was just the start of my life of crime since my family was in the trucking bidness and I got my first big rig driving lesson from my aunt when I was 10 years old.
I drove trucks starting at 14, not eligible for a commercial license till I was 18.
Since it was a family thing the DPS just had to turn a blind eye. This wasn’t a time of largesse since everyone was simply getting by, not a Caddy anywhere to be seen in the county except for a local politician.
I got stopped a lot by those DPS picks for just about any perceived crime you can imagine like no a brake light out or whatever they could dream up.
At least I learned early who the real enemy was and they didn’t get around in San pans or have slanty eyes as the government would have you believe.
It’s ironic I’ve spent a great deal of my life “hailing for hire” since that’s the only profession the Constitution allows highwaymen the legal right to rob you…….at gunpoint.
Hell, I once had a N . Carolina highway patrol reach into my wallet and relieve me of my cash not giving a shit if I had enough fuel to get back to Texas.
In a few more years I finally realized most of the population on the east coast resented hell out of Texans. The general public would diss every Texas plated vehicle including cars for simply being from Texas.
I heard so much trash talk about uppity Texans with their flashy rigs and similar bullshit I reached the point of no return. I haven’t been to the east coast since 1976 and hope I can die without doing so. That inbred bunch of carpetbaggers can kiss my rusty Texas ass and I still won’t grace their stupid presence.
In all fairness, I found the regular people of Georgia to be quite nice and appreciative of my bidness. I can’t say that about the rest of the east coast.
What happened to all my Confederate brethren? Did they check out like my family did when the yankees took over? Our Alabama and Kentucky relatives were never mentioned and I only found out about them over a decade ago when a cousin researched the family tree.
I certainly don’t blame anyone for leaving. One of the worst offensive states people were Virginians. What crawled up their ass?
And to add insult to injury, Texas law looks like somebody just copied Virginia law…..and that ain’t a good thing. If west Texans didn’t have good manners, I’d have moved to Mexico a couple decades ago and every year that passes I sorta wish I had, married or Single. Don’t marry a damned Czech woman….and as the wife recently pointed out, Czechoslovakia no longer exists. No doubt that part of Europe breathed a sigh of relief.
I wonder if more than a handful of people miss that Republic of the U.S..I know or knew many who lamented the passing of the Republic of Texas.
I don’t want to play anymore but can’t find a good alternative. Who wants to go some place where guns are illegal? Unfortunately we’re getting there too. I better go chunk out another case of 5.56X45 reloads to ease my mind.
All I really saw was a guy behaving like a total douchebog and a weary middle aged cop showing professional restraint in the face of the douchebag’s blatantly provocative behavior during the traffic stop he engineered so he could show off what a constitutional scholar he was. It went down just like many other videos I have seen with the exact same language being used by cocky punks out to make a statement. Not only a tasteless and gratuitous display, but stupid as well. He’d better hope he never slips up while driving in that town by having a tail light while driving with a BAC of .09 or some such thing. Cops do messed up things and violate peoples rights too often, but they are also human beings who get tired of dealing with shit from people.
You miss the point completely.
Being a “douchebag” is not illegal. A law enforcement officer (as AGWs style themselves) ought to know the law – and not enforce nonexistent laws. If he does enforce nonexistent laws, he should no longer be a law enforcement officer – and possibly, prosecuted criminally. Just as you or I would be, if we violated the law in the manner this AGW did.
I don’t give a damn whether an AGW is “tired of dealing with shit” from people. The issue is whether a law has been violated.
If not, then the AGW has absolutely no legal right to use his state-issued gun and “authority” to do what this AGW did.
In fact, the AGW broke the law by doing what you or I cannot – go after someone who has merely insulted us and use a gun and the threat of murderous violence to try to make them regret having done so.
If you (assuming you are not an AGW) came after me in a car, with a gun – and came up to my window with a gun – because you were angry at my being a “douchebag” – then I’d have the legal right in my state to try to get away from you and (if you continued to come after me) use my gun in self defense.
You seem to think – as unfortunately too many Americans think – that AGWs are entitled to special deference and are entitled to exercise special powers denied to us and irrespective of what’s actually legal.
I do not think so.
I think AGWs ought to be held to a much tougher standard than the rest of us, because we don’t have government-issued guns and the Authority of the state behind us. There ought to be severe repercussions for any abuse of Authority – such as enforcing a nonexistent law – for an AGW.
Remember, for us “ignorance of the law” is no excuse.
Why should it be an excuse for an AGW?
I think it is a mistake to appeal to the law to argue against what this AGW did. In your response to Eric’s comment you state “The issue is whether a law has been violated”. So, it is not against the law to extend your middle finger to an AGW today…what about tomorrow? I’m sure that some lawmaker would be happy to correct this oversight. I believe that in some states it is illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator at night. There is almost no human activity that is not against the law. Let’s not encourage our overlords to complete the job of criminalizing existence .
The mistake is to equate laws with morality.
Just because a law allows you to do something doesn’t make it right either. At one point in time in this country it was within the law to own another human being. It may have been lawful but it wasn’t moral.
The state is an immoral institution. Everything that it does is through coercion. To argue against it by citing its’ rules is a mistake in my opinion. Argue against the myth of authoritah!
Point very well taken; agreed!
But I was trying to convey to Erik and Sayeed the irony of “law enforcement” that doesn’t respect the law – and isn’t punished for violating it.
Missing the point from Mr. Lohmeier Eric.
“but they are also human beings who get tired of dealing with shit from people”
So their “hurt feewings” justify them abusing their power to settle a personal grudge???
The behavior displayed is a reaction to decades of escalating police violence, lawlessness and near total immunity from consequence. You saw a “weary cop, tired of this shit”, which would be reasonable if all he’d done was shake his head and keep driving. But, absent any legal authority, he chose to abuse his power and intimidate the disrespectful driver. Well, modern police do not deserve our respect. They have become an occupying army, with the uniforms and military equipment that goes along with that. Cops attend seminars where they are taught how to initiate pretext stops for the purpose of stealing property. They are trained to utter two mantras which absolve them from almost any accountability: “stop resisting” and “I feared for my safety”. The former is often uttered while a thug-scrum of cops is beating a defenseless man who is clearly not resisting. The latter, no matter how ludicrous, justifies police murder in almost every circumstance.
Police maintain a two part, mutually exclusive narrative: “we put our lives on the line for you everyday”, and “officer safety is paramount”. Well, you can have one but not both. The only thing unique about the Philando Castile case is that the officer, Jeronimo Yanez, was charged and tried for murder. It is clear that the officer “feared for his safety” but this just indicates how unqualified he was for the job. He insists that he “had no other choice”, which is clearly absurd. Of course, he was acquitted. In large part because of the widely held attitude of deference to police, that you express, among the general populace. As Eric and others point out, police should be held to a higher standard. If a private security guard had killed Philando Castile, that man would be in prison and Philando’s family would likely have received a large settlement from the security company.
Finally, we hear a lot about “good cops”. Problem is that almost all cops reflexively defend the actions of “bad cops”, which makes them complicit. The few truly “good cops” either quit or are pressured/forced to leave. In modern America, a cop is more likely to be disciplined for de-escalating a situation and seeking a non-lethal outcome than a cop who resorts almost immediately to deadly force.
No amount of douchebaggery by the public compares to the common actions of police today.
Jeremy, why should a cop feel the need to “shake his head”? No crime was being committed. Why would any person have a problem with peaceful, legal actions of any other person?
erik obviously has been raised in a police state and can’t remember life without self-righteous badged thugs who enforce unconstitutional laws enacted by immoral politicians.
I think it’s understandable, if flipped off by a stranger for no direct reason, to react in some way. This seems normal to me. The cop proved he was a douchebag by reacting with force.
I used to always react to being flipped off with like action. I can still react that way but mostly just laugh at it which seems to either bring on more or gets a look of something other than anger.
The thing that cops do best is self-aggrandizement. They love to crow that they are the “thin blue line” between us and utter chaos. For that we are supposed to worship at their feet.
It’s a pantload of crap. According to Ministry of Labor statistics, police work is one of the safest outdoor professions. Farming is more dangerous. However, you don’t see farmers patting themselves on the back, proclaiming themselves the “thin green line” between us and starvation and demanding fealty.
Cops are armed thugs working for a criminal enterprise. Even the courts have held time and time again that protecting us is not their job.
And, there’s this: We are told AGWs “protect” us… but to do so (leaving aside whether they actually do) they must harm us – by forcing us to pay for “services” we did not ask for and do not want or need.
Governments cannot exist unless they first commit two crimes, intimidation and extortion.
Intimidation is threatening someone with physical harm or physical confinement unless he obeys your commands. Governments refer to their intimidation as “law enforcement”.
Extortion is demanding payment for unsolicited “protection” from real or hypothetical threats from other parties. Governments refer to their extortion as “taxation”.
The problem with government is that it cannot avoid being anything other than the very evil it promises to protect us from.
Absolutely correct .
He was provoking the officer.Cops have to deal with a lot of crappola.It gets old after a while.Civility is better than provocation.I am not saying that there are no “rotten” officers, however,what good does it do you if your actions are “misinterpreted”, and, you are blown away!!!
“Cops have to deal with a lot of crappola”. Cops are almost entirely responsible for this. A reasonable adult would have ignored this affront. Any non-cop who chose to react with force to such a trivial insult, would be the aggressor.
It’s sad that the cult of political authority is so pervasive that people think it’s OK that thin-skinned be able to break the law and abuse their authority just because their feelings are hurt. That the law demands less restraint from AGW’s, (who are legally entitled to kill if they feel threatened, even if they initiate an illegal stop), than a “mere civilian”, is frightening.
ed.”that thin-skinned cops”
Since when is it okay that a microagression against a snowflake officially issued a lethal weapon may abuse the power of his office to seek revenge against someone who has not broken any law but has merely “dissed” them?
Faulty grammar. Too late to correct it.
Nice to “see” you again. I hope you’re doing well. Much love sent your way.
Thanks a million! Doing much better now.
So glad to hear that.
Why this obsequious attitude toward armed government workers? What is it that entitles them to bully people over hurt feelings, or some perceived slight?
If these “officers” are so emotionally fragile that they can’t restrain themselves, then – ipso facto – they ought to be in some other line of work.
Regardless, the fact remains: The man who affronted the cop broke no law. Ergo, the AGW was completely out of order enforcing his personal law.
Jeremy is “absolutely correct” – about the pervasive slavish attitude toward these badged thugs.
The police of yesteryear are NOT the police of today.
But then, neither is our government. I do not think we have a problem with the police, AKA law enforcement. Afterall, the police work for and are in civil government. If the behavior we see were confined to the police, we would see a corrective response from higher authority. But we don’t. County BOS do not speak out or prosecute the police. Nothing from City Council, Mayors, or the Governor.
Their silence confirms acceptance of this bull shit. From the top down. In fact, the police see no limits to their behavior as permission for their acts.
Consider this: Our armed forces have been instructed to shoot only at armed enemies who have shot first. Key concepts, armed enemies and shot first. And this is IN a war zone. On our streets and in our neighborhoods, we are not enemies, we are not in a war zone, and more often than not, weapons were not seen and shots were not fired.
Calling us enemies and our homes a war zone is paranoia by the police and not a reflection of reality. They see what they want to. If they see us as the enemy, they should look in the mirror because in all such situations, the one constant is law enforcement.
The police are being used to enforce the wishes of fascist in government and society. This is not a partisan practice, but a reflection of deranged leadership. There is no right way to do the wrong thing, and the police cannot act morally or rationally in the face of broken leadership.
The police, LE or AGWs are not the problem and are not the solution.
“Some reading this will be taken aback at the language above – will consider the foregoing a hyperbolic statement. But it is a statement of fact. Had the man – who did nothing illegal – declined to obey the illegal orders of the AGW and attempted merely to leave and go about his business – asserted his right to liberty – he would certainly have found himself the object of murderous violence.”
This is absolutely, undeniably true, which makes it mind-boggling how the Great Silent Majority of Sheeple will indeed consider it hyperbole, and insist that they, as opposed to Russians and Chinese, live in “the freest country in the world”.
Good morning, Bevin!
Yes, it’s sad – but very true. Unfortunately. Americans arguably – factually – now have less in terms of everyday personal latitude (a form of liberty) than the average Russian or Chinese. The Russian and Chinese governments are also authoritarian but less petty authoritarian than ours is. All insist on submission, of course. But I think – as a for instance – that you can ride a bicycle in Russia without a helmet without being Hut! Hut! Hutted! and in China, kids are still free to play without a parent hovering two feet away at all times.
Hope things are well…
“but they are also human beings who get tired of dealing with shit from people”
So their “hurt feewings” justify them abusing their power to settle a personal grudge???
All governments by their very nature must be tyrannical. China is no exception.
But ironically as of 2019, everyday life in Russia and China is actually less subject to the petty, obsessive tyranny that characterizes today’s Murcan “liberal democracy”.
One is NOT going to get shot and murdered after a traffic stop for a broken tail light or unfastened seat belt in China.
It’s OK. Really.
Just take a deep breath and sing along with Lee.
And I’m proud to be an American
Where at least I know I’m free
And I won’t forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
I think your message is certainly true.
That said, a person has got to be Really Stupid to flip off a cop.
I was pulled over and screamed at for shrugging when a cop turned left in front of me and made me brake to avoid him. I have been pulled over and harassed for looking at cop. Yes looking at him in a way he did not approve of. So yes, flipping one off is going to get a response.
Remember “No Hesitation Targets”? My favorite one to loath was the grandma, in HER kitchen, with a gun pointed at the home invader with a badge. Shit: no hesitation. Shoot grandma in her kitchen when you invade her space with a bogus warrant or maybe no warrant at all. So, why do so many call you “hero”?
The death penalty is alive and well in America. In fact, there is no infraction so trivial that the State does not claim the right to kill for violating. A while ago, loathsome busybody Felix Ortiz introduced legislation banning the use of salt in NYC restaurants. The bill called for a $1,000.00 fine for each salty dish. Of course, no government has the moral right to do this, thus no restaurant owner has a duty to follow such a law. But, if an owner refused to comply and refused to pay fines, eventually AGW’s would appear to arrest him and steal his property. If he defended himself with guns, which is certainly his moral right, he would be summarily executed.
Unfortunately, most of the anti-death penalty crowd would not consider this to be a State execution. Rather they would consider the murdered man to be a right wing extremist whose use of violence proves that we need more gun control. I am implacably opposed to the death penalty, as it is understood in law. But, it is at least understandable that one forfeits the right to one’s life if he takes another. The de facto death penalty, that underlies every interaction with “authority”, is far more pervasive and far more dangerous than the “lawful” death penalty.
All packaged foods have salt as required by federal law. Way to get around putting salt in food is to show the contents of the can to the gov’t workers who threaten over this issue.
The proposed law applied to restaurant dishes.
“then they are legally empowered to resort use murderous violence and we are legally debarred from defending ourselves against it.”
And since the courts will not hold them accountable for their illegal actions under the colour of law, it will only get worse as the piggies know that they are untouchable.
I am NOT encouraging violence against them as I think it would just accelerate the erection of an even harsher police state. However, the only LOGICAL solution seems to be every free thinking person to find a cop, a politician and a bureaucrat and kill them dead. They have left no other avenue for managing THEIR lawlessness.
Even one of their own knew this. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
Peace…….. until there is no other option.
Unfortunately, the youth of today seem so clueless regarding the fact that at one time our ‘servants’ were held accountable to a much greater extent. Coupled with their ‘education’, there is no hope.
The recent funeral for slain AGW Ronil Singh in California is absolute intellectual pornography: An endless line of AGW vehicles, some even from Canada….a sea of campaign hats with those insidious chin straps…eulogy after eulogy proclaiming Singh the savior of humanity and the bellowing of “…or the laaaand of the free…”, was quite a show.
Would have been a fun place to flip off some AGWs, but it would have also been instant death.
Watching AGWs break their own arms when patting themselves on the back is hilarious, pathetic and disgusting.
Americans have changed so much… the now-common worship of AGWs stupefies my sensibilities. It is so much like what one would have seen in Nazi Germany … but Americans, in the main, do not see it. Leonard Peikoff wrote about this tendency some 50 years ago… The Ominous Parallels…
All their fancy new SUVs are painted jet black with giant bumpers and enough lights to light up a stadium They look like something to invade Poland with. Us plebes generally get more modest cars these are probably 70K each and replaced every two years or so And for what
edit 105K https://www.thrillist.com/gear/how-much-do-police-cars-traffic-lights-and-other-public-machines-cost
All so true… and yet.. this seemingluy honest cop did NOT deserve to die and leave his Wife and Child alone.
HOW did he meet his end? He was murdered by a man who should not have been in that state, as he had invaded illegally, a sort of breaking and entering act on his part.HOW did this happen? Simple// because OTHER AGW’s allowed him to enter, and remain. They, of course, had some critical “help” from the very same lawmakers that swore to uphold and defend the US and Calif State Constitutions…. then perjured themselves by failing to uphold that oath.
I wonder how many of those present at this debacle were directly or indirectly responsibile for this specific law-breaking foreign invader’s presence at the time and place that presented his opportunity to kill. As long as the State of California, led by oath-breaking politicians, continues to allow such miscreants to make and enforce the laws in that state, other lawbreakers will continue to break even more, and innocents will continue to die. Kate Steinle, anyone? Several AGW”s were directly and proximally responsible for her death. Those who refused to uphold Federal law and notify Fed agents of his time/place of release from jail, to the AGW who carelessly and stupidly left his duty weapon in a backpack in the back seat of an UNLOCKED government issued car in San Francisci…… which duty weapon was the tool carelessly or deliberately used to and Kate’s life. That state has some hellacious laws regarding gun storage and security. You know, some “common sense” “gun control” laws……. and this AGW refused to submit to them and now she is dead. Securing arms in an unattended vehicle is so “common sense” I began doing it immediately I began to ever have guns in my car for any reason. NO ONE had to tel me “its the law”. Common sense dictates this.