Why Beck is Wrong Rant

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Well, the verdict – or rather, the indictment is in – and it’s not good.

Glenn Beck and some other “conservative” commentators disagree. Here’s why I don’t agree:

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – 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 or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you’d like an ear tag – custom made! – just ask and it will be delivered.  

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!


  1. Glen Beck is not a “conservative,” let alone a “libertarian.”
    Beck never was, or ever will be anything but a treasonous neocon.

    • Mike, I was wondering if someone would bring that up. Beck is the very definition of a Neocon. He is not now, nor am I familiar with any time, that he has ever actually been a libertarian. My personal view is that the man is badly deranged. But that doesn’t appear to hinder him in terms of being popular.

      • Hi BJ,

        I’ve never understood Beck’s assertions of libertarianism, which he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t respect. I also find his crying on air unsettling. It’s either a weird performance or the man is – as you say – deranged.

    • Hi Mike,

      Yup. He’s also a relentless shill. I understand – and don’t condemn – the need to advertise in order to make a a living on air or in print. But this dude is so over the top, spinning spiels about much he luuuuuuvsss a certain brand of dog food, etc…. oy vey!

  2. I have not been trying to follow this story very much, as there are just too many stories to follow and get worked up about, but I do have some thoughts. I am and have always been against this war on drugs, along with the war on everything else. I don’t care if everyone does hard drugs, and they need somebody to sell it to them, so I have nothing against the dealers. The only thing that I can agree with these protest groups about; defunding the police. I am not against a detective force to investigate real crimes, such as murder and other violent actions, and to lock up the bad guys. I have always been against men in uniforms patrolling our streets, highways, neighborhoods looking to give people a hard time when not necessary. I don’t require a police force to protect me from bad guys, I can and I am willing to assume that responsibility for myself. It would be nice if they relaxed the laws for people to defend themselves. Back to the story; assuming Miss Taylor and her apartment was the correct target for the police, knocking on the door at 3 AM claiming to be police, for how long did the police do that? Less than a minute? I know somebody has to knock fairly hard and give me a minute or two to get to the door assuming I would answer door. I don’t answer my door for anybody knocking on it in the daytime. The warranted subjects could have been picked up outside on the streets by one or two cops quietly and probably without incident. But our justice system has a hard-on for a show of force, full tactically dress S.W.A.T. teams for a big show. They got their big show, and unfortunately a person died who didn’t need to. I don’t necessarily think the cops that did the shooting need to be prosecuted, I guess they did the only thing they could do in the situation, but the whole system above them needs to be indicted for this death all the way up the chain to the judge to sign the warrant authorizing it To take place in middle of the night. I know I’m living in a dream land, and we will never have such justice, it’s just my dream.

  3. Eric

    I generally agree with much of what you post but there is a lot wrong about this rant. A few statements I’ll make right up front to show you my baseline:
    1. The war on drugs is stupid, failed, never should have been.
    2. Policing should be handled privately.
    3. In our current structure the police are indeed AGWs and should be held strictly accountable.

    While I believe the above, we currently live in a world where drugs are illegal, police are instruments of the state and qualified immunity gives far too much protection. My problem with your rant is that it follows a common error for many libertarians. It assumes that we currently live in a libertarian world and or that the true libertarian philosophy can be easily enforced/implemented in our current society. This is plainly false.

    Your facts in this case are flat wrong.

    1. Breonna Taylor was the subject of the warrant being served. Investigations concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a warrant to be issued. They have phone records and video surveillance as support. I agree that the warrant process is crap and that these laws shouldn’t even be laws but they still are.
    2. While the warrant was issued as “no knock”, the AGWs did in fact knock (corroborated by witnesses and Kenneth Walker). They also announced themselves as police (corroborated by witnesses).
    3. Upon making entry into the residence (forced because nobody answered) they were shot at by Kenneth Walker (corroborated by Kenneth himself and by ballistics). One AGW was struck in the leg.
    4. All 3 AGWs returned fire. Breonna Taylor was struck multiple times and one hit was fatal.

    We can all agree that this was tragic. The laws at play shouldn’t be in place. Warrants served in the middle of the night are inherently dangerous and shouldn’t happen.
    We also need to see that this is fairly straight forward. The AGWs were at the correct location and serving a valid (according to current law) warrant. The AGWs were legally allowed to force entry into the residence (again under current law). The AGWs were fired upon first and fired back in defense. The legal requirements at play were met; they and others around were at risk of serious harm and a reasonable individual would have responded in like manner.

    The libertarian cause is served by making it clear that we disagree with the law and its enforcement. It is only damaged by trying to pretend that facts don’t matter or that somehow we can apply the libertarian philosophy to any situation and assume/pretend like the current law is on our side. Fight to change the structure, don’t pretend like it already exists.

  4. You can’t drink alcohol, it’s illegal. Says who?

    Before Prohibition ended, there were ‘wet’ Senators and ‘dry’ Senators. The debate over alcohol prohibition was headline news in every newspaper in 1931-32.

    In 1932, after a summer of the Bonus Army squatting on the Mall in Washington, DC, MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower forcibly removed the WWI veterans who were demanding a bonus for serving in the armed forces. They were broke, wanted something more for defending the US, Congress said no and sent them packing. In November, after Hoover was damaged politically by MacArthur’s foolishness, FDR won the White House. Later on, when in office, he declared Prohibition over and drank a beer.

    Before that, in Chicago, Al Capone was making money hand over fist with a distribution system that began in Canada and the distribution line ended in Chicago.

    Al Capone was the first US businessman to accumulate, make, earn, 100 million dollars in a year. His crime was making people happy at the end of a work day. har

    He was delivering 20,000 gallons of beer each day to Chicago neighborhoods. Al also organized soup kitchens so people could have something to eat.

    Al was serving beer to strangers, making life better for beer drinking fools everywhere. Al’s brother, James Capone, aka, Richard “Two Gun” Hart was a still buster in Nebraska, he was an armed government agent. You can’t make this stuff up.

    In my home state of North Dakota, during Prohibition, you couldn’t take a Sunday drive out in the country with a nice big car along the border areas, you would be stopped by revenuers or bootleggers. The bootleggers would take your car and leave you stranded on the road. The feds would think you are moving booze with that big car, so you would be stopped and searched. It all happened that way way back then.

    All of the bootlegging originated in Weyburn, Saskatchewan where Seagram’s had set up shop. Then to Brandon, Manitoba, then to Winnipeg, then to Montreal, after the 18th Amendment was in the trash heap and Prohibition ended, Seagram’s moved to New York City. Canadians made a lot of money too.

    Make a substance illegal, the corruption begins, money has something to do with it. As it is in the real world, there is corruption in anything.

    Al’s occupation was based on demand, he had the supply, bidness was good.

    Al Capone’s lawyer was ‘Easy’ Eddie O’Hare. Easy Eddie had a son, ‘Butch’ O’Hare. Butch was an ace pilot during WWII. Chicago’s O’Hare airport is named after him.

    ‘Easy’ Eddie didn’t last long after he provided evidence to the IRS to nail Al Capone to the wall. lol

    In the words of Hunter Thompson, every presidency is nothing more than war. “All war” said Hunter.

    I attended a gathering at my local college where Hunter was speaking. He mumbled so much, you could hardly understand the words he was speaking. One thing he did say that stuck was he predicted that you wouldn’t be able to travel, transport yourself, to another state without having proper papers.

    Are we there yet?

    Also, Glenn Beck is an idiot.

  5. OK, I had the earphones blocking the sound.
    Now do you see the difficulties that guys like me have with pushbutton cars?
    I program some pretty cool operations on machine tools. I fix them when not acting properly. The damned tactile things with hieroglyph flummox me. I have used a horn button about six times in fifty years, but cannot find it when I need a new mask.
    I told my millenial son-in-law that Harley was in a world of excrement. Their demographic was gone ten years ago. Might as well peee away millions on an electric bike??? They were horrid in the 1980s and barely recovered.
    The dinks at Beuell spent less than 8% on their V-twin which is far better than Harley’s Porsche dealie.
    Why not hire the guys that are on Social Security to sort this out without the touch screens?

  6. I have a complaint. There is no sound for your little drive in your county. If you could add some phony sound like in the big leagues it would work far more gooder.

  7. Eric the best I can tell from local sources and the grand jury info your facts are wrong.

    The biggest one the cops were not at the wrong apartment and had a legal no knock search warrant to search the apartment which they executed at midnight.

    The main problem is the idea of using SWAT tactics late night can and did lead to violence over this idiotic war on drugs. Rand Paul’s bill to eliminate no knock warrants is a good first start. The problem is the law and the Judge who signed the warrant. Cops are just blunt tools used by the state to enforce the laws and what they did was mostly legal by todays laws.

    The laws need changed but few are talking about that. It is also time to end qualified immunity.

    • Fact: There is never, ever, any reason or excuse for a no knock warrant. The one and only purpose of such is to surprise the target for the purpose of confiscating “illegal” drugs before they can be disposed of. For that purpose, putting every single person on site at risk of bodily harm and death is deemed justified. Male Bovine Fecal Matter. In the first place, the state should not be deciding which chemical or herb is acceptable for human consumption. In the second place, if by some bizarre logic the state is justified doing so because of the “risk” involved in the particular substance being generally available, exactly how is putting everyone on the scene in mortal danger a lesser risk? Since you brought up SWAT tactics, they are likewise not justifiable in any situation that doesn’t involve a hostage.

    • Ozzy, one has to proceed with what information one has. Keeping in mind that the corporate mass media is prone to out right lies, when its not just distortion. There was still no excuse for the tactics used. Being “legal” doesn’t make something right. Nor is “just following orders” an excuse that holds up under examination, on other than the basis of power.

  8. I have an autistic libertarian question. I’m going to change some variables in this scenario.

    1. A real crime/violation of the NAP occurred. Not drug related. Something 99% will agree that justice or restitution for a victim is needed. Such as a murder that can be proven.
    2. Replace cops with private hired security or volunteers. Anarcho capitalist society, etc.

    So the serious NAP violator is on the run or hiding, private hired security or volunteers or private court system are looking for leads from people connected to suspected NAP violator.

    Alternate scenario 1: Address is correct, person who lives there is associated with person who violated the NAP. The event occurs – boyfriend shoots, security/volunteers fire back. Girl connected to NAP violator dies. Who is at fault?
    1a: Boyfriend who fired gun dies. Does that change anything?
    1b: Girlfriend fired gun, not boyfriend, does that change anything?
    When does association become so distant that it becomes a NAP violation against the loosely associated individual?

    Alternate scenario 2: Same as above, except address is incorrect (nobody connected to NAP violator at address). Who is at fault?
    2a: Address error is an honest mistake.
    2b: Third party purposely gave the wrong address to frame the people at that address, who they didn’t like.

    I know there may be disagreement that those associated with a (serious) NAP violator should be questioned for their connection to the suspected NAP violator. I can’t write this question like a lawyer and account for everything. I could tweak variables here and there all day but I think you guys get the picture. What I’m wanting to test here is who is at fault in these scenarios if everything else perfectly meets libertarian standards (lol).

    I’ll probably just reread this comment tomorrow and wonder why I’m so retarded.

    • Hi Brandon!
      I won’t get into the details of what you ask (Too many irons in the fire!) but just wanted to use the opportunity to point something out- although, your post brilliantly already illustrates it.

      The idea bandied about by some of ‘voluntary courts and private security’ is largely untenable.

      A ‘voluntary’ court would only have sway over those who voluntarily choose to participate in it/abide by it’s terms…else it would not be voluntary (And criminal types tend not to volunteer for such things! :D), and private security- if it had any authority to do anything that any other citizen could not do, other than purely defensively- would be no different than cops and politicians.

      The way it would have to work in a true Libertarian society (as it used to in the ancient world, and in the American West) is that people would have to be diligent to protect themselves and their families and property. A balance of power- Joe The Scumbag doesn’t rob or rape you because you are likely as well-armed as he is…so if he wants to keep living, it’s in his best interest to be civil. That is how the world largely used to operate,

      And for anything outside of that, the community or family of the victim could effect justice….(”
      Gather the posse, boys!”)- which of course, isn’t always perfect either- but in a society where everyone can be equally well-armed, and there is no government to interfere…people tend to be much more careful, because there is no such thing as “qualified immunity” or a judge with a piece of paper who says that you’re a “murderer” if you off a real murderer.

      The “Wild West” portrayed in movies…is not how it really was. People were very careful and protective, and didn’t engage in gunfights at the drop of a hat. It largely wasn’t until “The long arm of the law” arrived, that things started going to hell on a large scale. It’s like: They may’ve had an occasional problem…so they brought in the state….and then they had a much bigger problem, both from the real criminals, and the ones who were supposed to be ‘protecting’ them (Just like today)- where often the sheriffs were the protectors of criminal gangs or the railroad thugs, etc.

      tl;dr: Don’t be bamboozled by the currently popular idea of private courts and security forces. The people who tend to advocate such things, essentially think that we can have a Libertarian world which will be just like our current world, minus some of the problems- but that is not possible unless all voluntarily subit to some authority (which ends up being much like the so-called ‘social contract’; and or unless certain men are given rights that others don’t have…which is the same as what we have now under politicians).

      A ture Libertarian world would be a huge improvement…but it wouldn’t be perfect, as long as the majority of people who lived under were not agreed on the basic tenets of morality. Any wonder why the collectivists have made it their priority to rid the world of that traditional morality and unity, and replace it with ‘do what works for you’ and’diversity’?

      • Indeed, as Robert Heinlein so aptly put it, “an armed society is a polite society”. One does not get up in a woman’s face and call her names if her husband is standing there with a Redhawk on his hip.

        • JWK, such is well illustrated by the fact that in my former locale, the NYC metro area, despite seeing cops literally everywhere, all of the time, crime flourishes, and people live with bars on their windows- the average “law-abiding citizen” living virtually in individual prisons, because they have ability to protect themselves.

          Meanwhile, here in the sticks, where you literally never see a cop, there is virtually no crime…since everyone is well-armed, and we have strong “castle laws”. Any miscreant knows that to attempt breaking and entering will result in a definite trip to the morgue- as will an assault upon the typical person in public; in a parking lot; their car, etc.

          Your car breaks down in NY, you worry that if anyone stops, they are likely intent on robbing you. Here? Your car breaks down, 30 people will stop and offer help; offer to give you a ride, etc.

          Quite a difference. Instead of “The Wild West”, the proliferation of arms results in a very civil and safe environment- to the chargrin of the libtards.

      • Nunz, I appreciate your comment. But it doesn’t give me any real hope that I can convince someone else on why liberty is the answer. Any time you criticize this system, you need to answer, “well how would it work in your system”? Well, I don’t know. I get that freedom has risks. I think its worth the risks, but I cannot convey that effectively. This libertarian philosophy thing is real hard. I think I’ll just go back to being a moderate card-carrying republican.

        PS. I’m sure some people here heard about Ron Paul. He seems to be doing ok. Wish him the best.

        • Hey Brandon,

          The best answer is: We’re not proposing a system; We’re proposing autonomy, -the freedom to what you want individually, and or via voluntary association.

          A “system” implies that some would have to be granted special rights/privileges/authority over others- and that would be a form of government- which is the very thing we are seeking to escape.

          Trouble is, we really can’t convince anyone, because one either yearns for freedom….or they are willing to trade some amount of it away for some perceived benefit, like “safety”, or convenience, or escape from responsibility; enrichment not commensurate with the amount of work they do, etc.

          We, as a society have been so steeped instatism, that most people can not even imagine living in freedom. Most people utterly HATE the idea of living autonomously, -they don’t even pursue what aspects of autonomy and liberty we can secure for ourselves right now quite easily.

          Most of us who come out of this system, do so by first considering limited government- and if we truly appreciate liberty, that naturally leads us to real Libertarianism/voluntaryism/whatever. (That was even true of me! I started out as a Constitutionalist- as did even our friend Bevin who used to post here. But I quickly realized that even that wasn’t enough…as it still gave some men too much power over us- and ultimately, why should what someone wrote on a piece of paper have control over me and the decisions I make in my own life?)

          Uh oh…now I have to ‘Google’ Ron Paul……

        • Hi Brandon,

          Most adults like to make their own choices – and don’t like being held responsible for the poor choices made by others. Liberty leaves us each free to make our own choices and to be held responsible only for the choices we make. That’s a pretty powerful argument!

      • Hi Nunzio. “The “Wild West” portrayed in movies…is not how it really was.” How true. Hollywood has consistently provided propaganda to show how vital the “authorities” are. Louis L’amour, whose books are great by the way, researched the Wild West probably more than anyone else ever did. He related that he couldn’t find a single case of the Hollywood classic gunfight where the opponents faced off to see who could draw faster and shoot straighter. More important, he pointed out that the male townsfolk of the West were well armed and many of them were Civil War veterans. The idea that they were meek shopkeepers who could be cowed by a few guys acting tough is ludicrous: men who fought at Shiloh, Gettysburg, Spotsylvania Courthouse, Cold Harbor, etc., would not be intimidated by a bunch of punks riding into town.

        • So very true, Mike!

          Even as a child, I never bought into the Hollywood gunfight thing. Anyone who’d be so willing to risk their own life when not utterly forced to do so…likely wouldn’t have lived long enough to even make it to adulthood! That’s the part they don’t want us to know: Where everyone is equally well-armed, the bullies have no superior power- which is something a bully needs in order to be successful or maintain his own life.

          I think the “wild west” myth keeps most people on the plantation. The idea that they need an authoritarian state to protect them, keeps any desire to be free in check. The thought that their own responsibility, family and community could do a much better job than the tax-funded bullies whom they support, is utterly foreign to them- even though that is largely the way the world worked up until very recently.

          Since the switch to the protective nanny state, are we freed from violent criminals and bullies? LOL! Crime proliferates more so than ever, and now we have to be just as cautious or more so of our supposed “protectors” in addition to the civilian criminals they empower.

          Living among others who share our own basic values made for a functional and safe society. Now we have “diversity”- so everyone’s at odds with one another.

          • Morning, Nunz!

            Your observations about Hollywood and the portrayal of the “Wild West” are intriguing; I’d never thought those movies might have been consciously intended as state propaganda/conditioning. But – you’re on the money, factually. The “Wild” West was less violent than modern life, which is saturated with threats – and actual violence – everywhere. There may have been the occasional irritated Indian; the once-in-awhile rustler, etc. But it wasn’t a daily siege of government violence, everywhere.

            Sign me up!

            • Hi Ya Eric, Mine Freund!

              I don’t know that Hollywood’s portrayal of the Wild West as being a place where your life wasn’t worth two cents was intentional or not (At least back in the hey-day of Westerns)- as those Hollyweird libtards always have had such a perverted sense of reality…but then again, it would make perfect sense if it was intentional.

              It’s kinda like what I had mentioned elsewhere about the myriad aspects of a grand conspiracy being so pervasive and intricate, even over quite a long period of time, that it seemingly defies mere human organization -but yet is so concerted that is has progressed over the course of a century to achieve the end we are now starting to see clearly before us.

              To take it even one step further, consider that the popularity of Westerns was at it’sw height in the 50’s and 60’s. They were ubiquitous then! They were more common on TV then than are sensationalistic talk shows and “reality” shows are now- and right at that time, when “the lawless and dangerous primitive West” coiuld be contrasted with the outer-space theme, and men going to the Moon (LOL -sorry) via the power of the scientific and all-wise state- illustrating how we’ve “progressed”, and what “we can accomplish” if we all just work together and enable the state to do “these great things”.

              Funny, eh? (This contrasting of the “Wild West” vs. “The Space Age” at the same time just now occurred to me! Had never quite thought of it before in those terms.)

  9. Violence and defense are seperate concepts, violence is rooted in violation, the initial actor instigates it. Defense is a reponse to violence. In bizarro world, violation of the law warrants a law enforcement response as if it were self-defense which it might be if you’re an officer, strangely the law itself isn’t a competant compliantant. Would they testify that you violated or offended the law? Just to be certain let’s ask the law(crickets…)

    You mentioned the legitimate use of violence to meet violence in your “rant”

    • Max, the States stock in trade is coercion. Threats, intimidation, violence and out right murder. All under the “authority” of the sacred Will of The People (they just don’t tell you which people…). The only legitimate use of violence is in defense. Rothbard wrote a wonderful book titled For a new liberty, that explains much of this in great detail. I highly recommend it.


  10. Eric, well said…. One of the serious problems im seeing in the west is how people just overlook government incompetence. On the rightwing side of the argument it shocks me how easily they overlook the incompetence of AGWs of all forms…. they say citizens shouldn’t be armed because some may not be as competent – well these AGWs are armed to the teeth and yet aren’t competent enough to get the address right for such a serious raid… (again whether it was justified or not is a whole other question)…. Where is the demand for people to be held to account, and politicians or AGWs to be hit at a personal level !?!?

  11. Sadly, Beck’s nonsense is typical of the Hegelian dialectic which the politicians and their mouthpiece -the media- are erecting; that of creating one side which represents “crime” and “terror”, and an opposing side which represents “law and order” and “safety”- so that the unthinking masses who fear crime and terror, will advocate ever more draconian police-state tactics and excuse out-right murder, as long as it happens to “someone else”- never considering that it can just as easily happen to them and theirs, nor caring that by advocating such things, they are empowering the most dangerous thugs (cops and politicians) to have unlimited power and control. This is also why the media tends to only report on such incidents when they involve “drug dealers”, “dangerous felons” or other “unsavory characters”- but never when they happen to innocent people, -especially white people, who by far comprise the majority of victims.

    If the media were honest, and were to report these types of cases indiscriminately -as opposed to just ther ones which fit their agenda- and or if they were to make known just the number of dogs and other pets killed by these badged bastards, that would be enough to start a real revolution, and give the average person a true picture of the utter depravity of the state and it’s goons…..but of course, they can’t have THAT, now can they?- as it would achieve the very opposite of the mentality they are trying to create.

      • Faux News is controlled opposition. With the exception of Tucker and a few others, its just a different branch of MiniTrue. I’m quite surprised that Tucker hasn’t been reined in. I suspect because of two possibilities. One, its known that Trump watches him every night. Two, if he was, he would leave (and take much of his massive audience with him) and go to OANN (One America News Network) which one of the fastest growing in the country.

        • Fox, just like all other CIA infiltrated Mockingbird Media, have a vested interest in an omnipotent central government. Otherwise, what would they report on 24/7?

          • JWK, its not just the Company. The IC (Intelligence Community) in general uses different parts of the corporate (and these days alternate) mass media for various Psych Ops. There are primary, secondary, and Influencer sources. By knowing who belongs to what group, one can determine what the current focus/spin is.

    • Compared to the murderous activity of the state, real criminals, those willing to inflict harm on another for no justified reason, are an inconvenience.

  12. Part off topic, part response to article: https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-09-21-doj-declaration-seattle-portland-new-york-anarchist-zones.html

    I’d like to see the terrorist rioters ambushed by law enforcement in the streets for real (not just fake acting), but I have a bad feeling what the REAL plan is:
    The sheriffs & police could have squashed the rioters like a bug a long time ago, but they’ve been purposefully standing down, letting this rioting go on, it’s NOT out of control, it’s really quite easily stoppable, then the president (whoever it ends up being, doesn’t make a difference who) & national military forces will be deployed in cities even though the sheriffs & police could handle it themselves (they’ll pretend like they need federal/national help), but they won’t really kill any rioters and they won’t even arrest any of the traitor politicians (which will be just another huge slap in the face to the American people), they’ll just be standing around ‘putting on a show’, and they’ll say they have to have “martial law” but that’s a lie — they don’t have to hang around after stopping the rioters, all they’s have to do in reality is just show up and have a ‘show of force’ (just show they mean business) and the rioters would never come back (or even shoot a couple of them, but they probably don’t even need to do that), but the media will hype up the “need” for the federal military and make it all confusing to the public, and the president/etc will take credit for “stopping the rioting/terrorism”, the actual rioters will just be told by their HANDLERS/CONTROLLERS to stop so they’ll stop, and IDK what happens then — they may just have permanent soldiers on our streets but it’ll be to suppress the people (not the criminal rioters). And the overall truth is that they’re ALL working on the same team to deceive the people, and manipulate the peoples’ emotions & thoughts, so that the people accept this permanent occupation of our cities/etc or whatever else their plan leads to. See how they trick us all?

    Everything is an illusion, except the suffering it causes.

    • Oh, I think that the rioting is being ALLOWED so as to create a pretext for martial law; it’s a pretext for establishing a police state. Here’s why I think that…

      POTUS’ lack of action prompts a thinking person to ask some logical questions. WHY has George Soros not been arrested? Why hasn’t he been charged? Why does he still have his US citizenship, when his stated aim is to OVERTHROW our nation? Why haven’t his assets been frozen? Why haven’t the assets of his front organizations not been frozen? Why hasn’t the gov’t taken steps to dry up the funding for these riots, hmmm?

      You say that DoJ and FBI can’t move. Why? Why does Chris Wray still have a job? Why does William “Swamp Rat” Barr (an appropos nickname, given his history) still have a job? Why haven’t they been fired? Why doesn’t POTUS say his ICONIC line to both of them? Why doesn’t he replace both of those worthless SOBs?

      Let’s go even farther with tech censorship. Why hasn’t Big Tech been charged or had any action taken against it? Ah, but we can’t take anti-trust or Section 230 actions against them, because they’d take too long! What about something indirect, such as the actions taken against Al Capone? You remember that Al Capone was NOT tried for murder, theft, rape, robbery, assault, or anything else, don’t you? How DID they get him? They got him on tax evasion, Folks!

      Something similar could’ve been done with the Big Tech CEOs. Remember how, in 2018, they all testified in front of Congress? Do you remember how they all said that they weren’t engaging in censorship? Remember how they said this with straight faces? Do you remember that, by this time, both Laura Loomer and Alex Jones had already been BANNED? Wasn’t that prima facie evidence of engaging in censorship? So why not try the SOBs for lying to Congress? Had this been done; had an example been made of them; Big Tech might not be doing what it’s doing now.

      So, that prompts me to ask more salient questions. Does POTUS WANT all this? Why can’t I draw this conclusion when he’s done NOTHING about any of this BS? Sorry, but I’m not sure I can support Pres. Trump, given his lack of action; I can’t support him when he’s HELPING, not hurting, globalism. That is all.

      • YUP! Actions show you the truth, talk is cheap. Sure, he’s got great talk, but that’s all it is. But he’s still a good guy because ‘white Jesus’ can do no wrong.

        Funny how there’s no talk about any other candidates or parties except the usual two.

        We all want a leader, we want a savior, … but none of this is going to end until we realize that we are our own saviors. We have to organize and start functioning like a real civlization where majority rules instead of “representatives” making laws etc on their own.

  13. End the War on Intoxicants and all this BS goes away. But, the Yankee mindset of beating the crap out of anyone that doesn’t agree with them rules this country. It seems almost everyone loves a Big Ship of State…so long as their hand is on the tiller.

  14. It doesn’t matter if someone is believed to be a drug dealer. It doesn’t matter if they’ve broken some trivial rule. It doesn’t matter if they’re not a sympathetic person. It doesn’t matter if they’re black, or white, or some hue in between. When the state’s cops interact with a human being- citizen or otherwise- they OWE respect, deference, politeness, and professionalism to their employers.

    At the point the cops are serving a warrant- they are serving it on an INNOCENT person. Who has a right to defend self and property. Everyone is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. They are innocent when pulled over by a cop for allegedly breaking some rule. The ticket is an uncorroborated accusation- nothing more.

    The cop’s gun is a symbol of office- and should be a simple defensive weapon. Any cop who pulls a gun, much less a trigger, unless clearly under physical attack with lethal force, should be immediately fired and indicted for assault, battery, attempted murder, or murder as the circumstances warrant. This should NOT be done by their friends in the prosecutor/legal system, but by a separate citizen’s grand jury and petit jury.

    I despise cops in general- the communist state’s enforcers. I don’t hate them individually- I’ve known a few who were decent enough. But being a good guy- most of the ones I’ve interacted with and remember are the mouthy little assholes. The ones who act personally offended when they’ve stopped me for going a few miles per hour over an arbitrary number on a sign. Or exercising my RIGHT to drive without a seat belt or helmet. Or not quite stopping and parking at a lightly traveled or empty intersection.

    The real problem for whom any hate should be reserved is the judges and the lawyers. The judges for acting like the state’s cops are infallible and their testimony is holy writ even and especially when it’s obvious that they’re not right or truthful. The prosecutors who don’t have the integrity and courage to say, “This is bullshit- you had no reason to go hassle this guy and you’re wasting everybody’s time and money and I’m not going to prosecute it”. Those are the real bad guys- the cops are mostly just not smart enough to realize the whirlwind they are sowing.

    I find myself torn when I see the communist agitators duking it out with the cops- I don’t particularly want either to win. I’d give a slight edge to the cops, since defending against rioting mobs is legitimate peace officer work. But mostly they’re still more concerned with writing tickets/drug busts/legal system revenue than they are with taking a hard line against actual criminals.

    • The police are the indispensable factor. Without enforcement, “laws” have no influence. Without enforcement, Hitler was a not very good comedian with a funny mustache.

      • Exactly. Without the big men with (clubs/spears/swords/guns) all that remains is people wearing Funny Hats. They can howl and rant all they want. Without their enforcers, its just noise.

    • “I find myself torn when I see the communist agitators duking it out with the cops.” My thought is always, “Can they both lose?”

      “At the point the cops are serving a warrant- they are serving it on an INNOCENT person. Who has a right to defend self and property. Everyone is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.” Exactly. That’s really well put. Thank you for making that point. I’ve said it a million times in conservative site comment sections: The law exists to protect the innocent. We have due process and a presumption of innocence to protect everyone, not just douchebags, and we have *courts* to make the determination of guilt. Conservatives like to cheer the cops when they “take out the garbage,” but not everyone who’s arrested is guilty. What leg will the conservatives have left to stand on when it’s their turn? What will be their defense when they’re the innocent accused? It feels good to them now because they don’t like the color or persuasion of the people getting their doors kicked in, but if those people aren’t safe, no one else is, either. There’s no such thing as letting the government get away with a limited violation of people’s rights. It will either apply due process and a presumption of innocence all the time, or it will eventually never apply them. Everything in between is just the downward slide to totalitarianism.

      And it is ultimately the judges’ fault for authorizing that bullshit and the prosecutors for so rarely charging cops. Just like a judge signed off on the raid that killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas.

  15. Such a shame that now our whole society gets to crumble a little more, that the chasm widens, that more innocent people will suffer at the hands of these unruly mobs, because these dufuses have to gear up, can’t get the house number correct, and then piss their pants and start blasting away. Yes, they deserve every bit of the blame here, but sadly will never be held to account. And the rest of us at large get to bear the consequences for their incompetence. You’d think by now we’d learn something or adjust attitudes and behaviors.

    This does not sanctify the ensuing riotous violence, but I will shed no tears for police who are injured, shot, or killed by way of it. Earned and deserved; guilty by association until and unless the so-called good cops repent and denounce the actions of their trigger happy roid-headed brethren. These same god damn pigs are out there now tazing moms at football games and arresting church goers, all for not donning a face diaper. No sympathy from me. Rot in hell, the lot of them, for the evil they have sown.

    • Amen, Bac –

      I do not like saying amen. But amen nonetheless. These are the same “law enforcers” who will indeed Hut! Hut! Hut! you and me for not Diapering; or for opening the doors of our business to those who wish to freely enter.

      Until they return to being peacekeepers, they’re no better in my book than the BLM thugs.

  16. “No drugs were found in Taylor’s apartment after the warrant was executed,” according to an NBC News report cited in the Wikipedia entry on the late Breonna Taylor.

    Hers is a tragic story that’s been repeated hundreds of times since the endless, futile escalation of Nixon’s failed War on Drugs led to egregious constitutional violations such as no-knock raids at 3 am, the use of battering rams to knock down doors, shooting dogs as well as innocent people inside, terrorizing children, and stealing cash (asset forfeiture) without any criminal charges or even any drugs.

    Victims have been entrapped and convicted for merely *talking* about a drug deal with a narc who lured them in with promises of easy money. The larger the quantity *theoretically* discussed, the longer the sentence. No actual drugs required. Just hearsay from a bent witness.

    What kind of free [sic] country is that?

    It’s a misuse of the word conservative to apply it to commentators who reflexively side with agents of the police state, even when the Bill of Rights is being shredded before our eyes.

    Don’t expect the appointment of another soi-disant ‘conservative’ to the Supreme Court to change any of this. Nine hacks in black have proved to be a shameful, supine rubber stamp for any violence the police state chooses to commit. The ‘justices’ are perfectly fine with police yanking you out of your car, pinning you to the ground, and shoving a needle into your vein for a forcibly-extracted blood sample to prove you aren’t ‘impaired.’

    Washington, Jefferson and Madison would have formed a militia to take out these tyrants.

    • Well-said, Jim… the whole premise of the “war on (some) drugs” is despicable. One could urge a “war” on obesity (and the foods which “cause” it) on the same logical basis; i.e., we are the children/property of the government and it has interest in making sure do as it – meaning, the people who are the government – thinks best.

      Nixon was a drunk – but never Hut Hut Hutted! for partaking of his favorite “drug.”

  17. Eric, you are mistaken about the police getting Breonna Taylor’s address wrong. They got a warrant for her place because her ex boyfriend was a known drug dealer and violent criminal – and she had been helping him in the past. The ex boyfriend was using Taylor’s place to receive money and/or drugs.

    Now, I suspect that we can all agree that drugs should be legal and that it shouldn’t be anybody’s business what substance someone uses. And it certainly isn’t any of my concern what somebody does with drugs inside their own house- whether they buy drugs and/or consume them. So by this standard, the police were in the wrong. But by the current law, the police were justified. They got a warrant from a judge based on what was known about Taylor’s ex boyfriend. When they went to serve the warrant, they were fired upon and returned fire.

    I don’t know about you, but if someone comes to your door at 3 am and attempts to enter your house, whether you hear them declare who they are or not, wouldn’t you wait to see WHO it is BEFORE shooting them? Would you just fire at them through your front door, no idea who they are? What if it was a neighbor in an emergency situation?

    I think that the entire situation is tragic and certainly Taylor’s death is a tragedy as she appeared to have been trying to get on the right path in life. But besides enforcing the laws which have been passed by the democratically elected government, the police didn’t do anything wrong. Police in general seem far too quick to shoot innocent civilians but in this case, the police were shot at – and hit – FIRST. So that is a very different scenario.

    • BINGO! Krista, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Why couldn’t I find a woman like you when I still gave a damn?

      That said, even though Breonna Taylor may have been trying to get on the right path, the fact of the matter is that she was in bad company. As Aesop, the famous autho of fables, once said, if one keeps bad company, that person will be thought of badly themselves. To put it more crudely, if you sleep with dogs, you’ll wake up with fleas.

      • Hi Mark,

        “Bad company” shouldn’t incur a death sentence. People – in a free country – have a right to make poor personal choices. The fact that such choices are arbitrarily criminalized shows how un-free this country is.

        • Eric,

          I have no quibble with that; everyone should be free to make their own choices. That said, choices have CONSEQUENCES, and people need to be ready to accept those consequences…

          • Hi Mark,


            And also for the AGWs. If they had the wrong address then that is criminal negligence on their part and the resultant homicide is on them, too.

          • Yes Marky actions/in actions have consequences. Knocking someones door down at 3am tends to have rather dire consequences. Most people do not have the training, situational awareness and experience to handle shoot / don’t shoot decisions after being suddenly awoken from a sound sleep. Thats one of the reasons you don’t pull this nonsense. It endangers the AGWs, and the people being targeted.

            Have you ever heard of something called a home invasion? They have become much more common over the last few years. There was NO excuse for pulling this raid at 3am in the morning. Other than certain types of AGW get their jollies from such antics. If you will remember, I normally at least attempt to see things from the side of the AGW. Thats a hold over from a long ago time, when peace officers didn’t act like badged thugs. But when people act like badged thugs, they should be described as such.

            The sad and tragic reality is, that the thug in question isn’t the one who will have to pay for this. Its the tax payers of the city who are on the hook for the settlement. This nonsense needs to stop NOW.

            • BJ,

              The facts of the matter are these. One, Breonna Taylor had, to put it charitably, a poor choice in boyfriends. Two, she ran with a bad crowd. Three, running with a bad crowd will put one in the wrong place at the wrong time. Four, being in the wrong place at the wrong time will increase the probablity of bad things happening to the one making bad choices.

              Shoot, Aesop had it right thousands of years ago! He said that if one chooses bad companions, one will be badly thought of. It may not be right; it may not be correct; but it is the way it is.

              Breonna Taylor chose shithead crooks for boyfriends. Breonna Taylor chose to help them. Breonna Taylor chose to cavort with them. Breonna Taylor, by making a series of bad choices, put herself in harm’s way. If one makes bad choices, bad results usually follow.

              • Hi Mark,

                You describe Taylor’s boyfriend as a “crook” – why? Is he accused of defrauding his customers? My understanding is he engaged in free trade with consenting adults. I see that as far less crooked than AGWs who force me to finance their roadside mulctings and Hut! Hut! Huttings!

                Harm’s way?

                Everything was peaceful and quiet until the Hut! Hut! Hutting! began.

                • Eric,

                  I have no problem with what you or anyone else chooses to put in their body, do with it, etc. I think drugs should be legalized. Unfortunately, they’re not.

                  Here’s something to consider. Would you not agree that people partaking in the drug trade commit crimes, even if it’s not the sales of the drugs themselves? Isn’t it true that people in the drug trade use threats, indimidation, violence, and even murder to carry out their trade? Aren’t these crimes? Since Taylor’s BFs were in the drug trade, isn’t it logical to assume that they’d done these things? Doesn’t THAT make them crooks? Doesn’t YOUR definition of crime revolve around doing harm to others? If one engages in making threats, intimidating others, commiting acts of violence, and commiting murder, haven’t they commited crimes-even by your definition? Ergo, Taylor’s BFs were crooks-end of story.

              • Mark, with all due respect, who she associates with is irrelevant. There’s just no justification for what happened here. One, her selection of boyfriend is not a crime worthy of summary execution in the sanctity of her home in the middle of the night. Two, cops often don’t and usually can’t discriminate between bad associates and good associates, meaning that if we excuse this type of murder on the basis of being too much in proximity to a bad guy, while operating under a loose and shifting definition of what constitutes a bad guy (diaper dissenter? needle refusing granny killer?) then sooner or later they’ll point the cannon at you.

                • My point, and my life experience confirms this, is that having bad companions brings bad results. That was my only point. It may not be right; it may not be fair; it may not be just. However, it’s the way life is. The fact of the matter is that we’re known by the company we keep. If one hangs out with shady characters, the odds are greatly increased of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and getting caught in the crossfire.

                  • Hi Mark,

                    I could be characterized as “shady” – and have been, by Clovers – for refusing to Diaper, buckle up and so on. Does this make me “bad company”?

                    • No, but that’s apples and oranges. You’re not harming anyone else by refusing to diaper as I do. That said, folks in the drug trade regularly make threats, intimidate people, commit acts of violence, and even kill people while conducting business. Those are decidedly harmful acts! Our refusal to diaper isn’t at all equivalent to what drug dealers normally do while plying their trade.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      No, it’s not.

                      You are impugning those who “deal” arbitrarily illegal drugs as a class. This is obviously untrue. The fact that some dealers are violent does not mean all are. Isn’t this self-evident? Hell, I’ve dealt with “dealers” – in pot – for decades and not once have I experienced “threats, intimidation or violence.”

                      It’s an absurd argument, especially in view of the fact that almost no one is ever forced to deal with a “dealer.”

                      As opposed to law enforcement. Or the DMV. Or the insurance mafia.

                    • MM,

                      …so then go after the people who kill and harm others and steal…for those things- but not just because someone is “engaging in the drug trade”. And when ya go after those people, do what it takes to make sure you’re getting the right person, and in such a manner that will not provoke unnecessary violence.

                      But when you kill someone or ruin their life, or violate their most basic rights, when that person has not substantially harmed anyone else….YOU then become the criminal.

                      What difference does it make to me if I am killed by a drug dealer as opposed to a cop?

                      I’ve never had to interact with a drug dealer, because I’ve never chosen to. I have had to interact with cops, because they initiate contact because of some petty law or circumstance, even though I have not harmed nor abused anyone, ever.

                      I’ll take my chances with the drug dealer, any day. I’ve never had a drug dealer initiate contact with me nor pose any threat to me; and I could defend myself against a drug dealer if necessary…whereas if I do so against the fuzz, a group of my peers would be happy to vote me into jail.

                    • Nunzio, you raise good points; I can’t argue with ’em. Though I’ve had a couple of dealers interact with me first, they backed off soon as they saw I wasn’t interested. Can’t say the same about the cops!

                      I’m curious as to what you’ll say about my Trump rant, which I made elsewhere in this thread…

                    • Hey, MM,

                      Just read your Trump- and I agree 100% with your overall point (Just not on a few details, like tech censorship)

                      What you say is largely the same as what I’ve been saying, re both “sides” are just part of the dog-and-pony show being put on for the benefit of the public.

                      Trump is in a position and under circumstances where he could do a LOT if were really there to do what he preachers to the flag-wavers at his conventions.

                      Instead…he issued the order to arrest Assange….NOT Hilary or Soros!!!!!

                      That says it all. No need to say any more. All those who cast a vote thinking that they are accomplishing anything or picking a lesser evil, or fighting back the mystical ‘other side’ would be better served to take a piss into the wind.

                      It’s a “fixed” game…and no matter how good you think your aim is, you’re never gonna get the ring around the right peg to win, ’cause the diameter of the peg is bigger than that of the ring!

              • MM, while what you say is factually true- it is irrelevant, because What befell Breonna was not a natural consequence of her poor choices (i.e. her creep boyfriend didn’t kill her or violate her rights) but rather was a consequence of the STATE doing something illegitimate.

                Had the state not been doing what it had no right to do, no one’s rights would have been violated; no one would be dead.

                Even if one assumes that the state has a right to exist and to punish people for the violation of made-up laws whose transgression did not harm any ubwilling person or pose an immediate and present threat to anyone, it would still behoove them to act in such a way so as to guarantee the safety, life, property and rights of all private citizens whom they seek to interact with and upon whom they owe due process.

                The fact that they know where someone lives, and that there is no immediate danger- such as someone being held hostage, means that they had the option of interacting with their intended victims at a time and in a manner which would guarantee the safety and rights of those victims and all around them. But instead, they chose to assault their intended victims at a time and in a manner which would PROVOKE a response, escalate the potential for violence, and maximize terror- all because they consider the prospect of finding and preserving evidence of drugs to be more important than human life and our most basic rights!

                So just who are the more unsavory characters here? Unfortunately, one can not choose to avoid the badged variety.

                In Georgia a few years back, they SWAT-raided a home in a gated community because it’s occupant hasd unpaid parking (or was it traffic?) tickets! Are we to disassociate from those we may know who may have unpaid tickets now, for fear that we will be killed by the state?

                And what of when these things do occur at the wrong address- as they OFTEN do? This is nothing but “Shoot first, ask questions later”.

                I’m only thankful that years ago, they were more careful about such things, when I was in my 20’s and lived in a house on an avenue that had a name which was shared also by a “lane”, and a “road” and a “street”. One morning, some plainclothes cops knocked on the door looking for someone who wasn’t me- but they were polite and easily ascertained that I was not the person whom they were looking for. If that had happened today…I likely would have been the victim of a raid- and one way or another, I’d be dead today, because even if they didn’t kill me there and then, if they had shot my dog and wrecked my house, I would have hunted them down and would have executed anyone remotely involved!

                NO ONE, who is not posing immediate and specific threat to life and limb should ever have to worry about such a prospect- much less in the Jew-S-of-A…much less merely because some men signed a piece of paper somewhere declaring certain drugs as “illegal to possess”, and have hired goons who are so zealous to enact the penalties of said law on any whom they can, that they consider the preservation of those drugs to be of more import than the most basic of human rights, and even life itself. That is SICK! Anyone who would involve themselves in such a pursuit is not human, and is 100x lower than the prey they seek to capture…and are not even fit to live among men.

                One would be better off associating with the mangiest of dogs and getting fleas, than to have to ensure the presence of utter vermin.

                • Nunzio,

                  I get what you’re saying. I think that drugs should be legalized; for a whole host of reasons, they should be legalized. That said, they’re not, and we have to live with the reality that they’re not-unjust though that may be.

                  That said, let me ask you a few questions. Isn’t it true that those who engage in the drug trade resort to threats, intimidation, violence, and even murder to conduct their business? Isn’t it also true, by using your and Eric’s definition of crime, that these acts cause HARM to others?

                  What about how they MAKE the drugs? Isn’t it true that certain drugs are “cut” or diluted? Isn’t it true that harmful substances are sometimes used in diluting the drugs? Do these chemicals cause harms to other peaple, i.e. the customers?

                  Isn’t violence (i.e. actions intended to harm or kill someone) commiting harm against someone else? Isn’t the commission of murder a crime by that definition? Did her BF use harmful substances in cutiting the drugs? Were any of his customers HARMED by this? So what does that make Breonna Taylor’s BF? A criminal-end of story.

                  Maybe the cops should’ve arrived at a more civilized hour. Maybe they shouldn’t have been so quick to escalate the situation. What we do know is that the cops knocked; they announced themselves; and BT’s BF opened fire first. Those are the facts. Opening fire on a cop is a good way to get killed.

                  That said, arguing with a cop is stupid; that goes double for commiting an act of violence against one! That’ll never lead to anything good. If the cops mistreat you, then you fight it out in court, not on the scene.

                  • Hi Mark,

                    You write: ” Isn’t it true that those who engage in the drug trade resort to threats, intimidation, violence, and even murder to conduct their business?”

                    This is a blanket statement that could just as easily by applied to just about any business. The fact that some engage in “threats, intimidation, violence, and even murder to conduct their business”does not mean that all do. I grew and sold pot in college. Never did any of things you mention. It was honest trade.

                    You write: “What about how they MAKE the drugs? Isn’t it true that certain drugs are “cut” or diluted? Isn’t it true that harmful substances are sometimes used in diluting the drugs? Do these chemicals cause harms to other peaple, i.e. the customers?”

                    See earlier point, above. Some may, it does not mean everyone does.

                    • Eric, you should have mentioned that when they said

                      You write: ” Isn’t it true that those who engage in the drug trade resort to threats, intimidation, violence, and even murder to conduct their business?”

                      That such is the typical actions of government.

                  • MM,
                    While it may be true that some participants in the drug trade engage in violence and theft, etc. [Largely thanks to drugs being illegal- and thus a vacuum being created due to the unwillingness of “legitimate” businessmen being willing to engage in it)…it is certainly not true of all participants.

                    My cousin used cocaine when he was in dental school…never committed a real crime in his life; I have another relative (Whom I don’t bother with) who sells his prescription drugs…who isn’t even capable of being violent….

                    And while some dealers may cheat their customers, how is that anyone else’s business, other than that of the person who was cheated?(And who has no legal recourse, because drugs are “illegal”).

                    What does any of that have to do with pigs raiding the houses or suspected houses of suspected drug users, dealers, or anyone else? (And believe me, I have no love for drug dealers, or users….many of whom are indeed scum)

                    I prefer to associate with people of the highest character…and even if you do too, you might be surprised at the secrets that some people you know/interact with are keeping.

                    How many people go to a doctor, and may be totally unaware that doctor is prescribing drugs “illegally” to some people/may have even done time in the past for doing so? (Or that your dentist may be a recreational drug user?)

                    Fact is, this is none of the state’s business- and even if it were, what they are doing is totally opposed to the Fourth Amendment, and is a REAL criminal act.

                    And it’s not just about drugs; far from it. Randy Weaver got it for having a shotgun with a barrel that was a quarter of an inch “too short”. The IRS and many other government agencies do it- and no one is immune!

                    These bastards even do it in occupied apartment buildings, where they’ll raid one apartment, and the bullets may fly- whether from the cops, the victims or both…withour regard to who or what is on the other side of the thin walls/floor/etc

                    This is SICk stuff, that only depraved psychopaths would engage in, who have no regard for the lives, property or rights of anyone.

                    Journalist John Stossel set up a sting once (The vid may still be on YT) in which he rented a house and set up a gro-light in a bedroom, and dressed like a ‘head’. That is all he did. In short order, the house was raided..on camera!

                    Where was the witness to testify of the “item to be seized and it’s exact location”?

                    All it takes is mere appearance…happenstance..mistake…a crazy or vindictive neighbor…even a child with a vivid imagination. It can happen to anyone, anywhere…but of course, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it’s usually only the cases involving “unsavory” characters” which get media coverage.

                    And sadly, this BLM bullshit is going to make it worse- as now the pigs will have an excuse to treat everyone and every situation as a presumptive threat to their ”
                    safety”- and of course, the average schmoe will now thinkl that they are justified in doing so. (Would that it were decent people doing what BLM is doing…..but ‘they’ would never allow us to get that far. With BLM, the public now has a ‘group of bad guys’ to loathe and seek protection from…and guess who they turn to for that protection? (If they manage to live through being ‘protected’!)

                    • Nunzio, I have NO DOUBT at all that the BLM business is being allowed to CONTINUE precisely to usher in the police state. I’m MAD AS HELL @ POTUS for letting it continue!

                      I asked myself why. I know why the lefties are doing it; they’re doing it as a prelude to a communist revolution. The other side, though they could stop it (and since many of these characcters have gone INTERSTATE to commit their acts of violence, that means the Feds can step in!), allows it to continue. I had to ask why. The only LOGICAL answer is to usher in the police state. See my rant about POTUS elsewhere in this thread; it’s the long one. Anyway, I blame DJT for a lot of this, and he’s doing it to usher in the police state on behalf of his globalist masters.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      Orange Man has offered to send in federal troops to deal with BLM. The governors have refused his offer. Orange Man could, of course, act contrary to their wishes – but that would be very police-state-like and I am glad he has not so acted.

                    • MM, the leftists are just the useful idiots- as are the conservatives, too. It has been proven that much of BLM’s funding comes from George Soros and his crowd.

                      It’s not just the leftists…it’s the whole the charade- the left vs. the right, which is used to achieve the end goals of the true rulers- they’re pulling the strings of both sides…because it’s not one side vs. the other; good vs. bad; but rather the whole thing is contrived to achieve a desired behavior, and both sides are “in on it”- else why would we have the absolute worst specimens vying for elected office?(Especially the Dems! Never before have they ever run such an unelectable candidate…. Would even a retarded 7 year-old believe that they are doing so in ignorance, or that they think they could win by doing so?)

                    • Eric,

                      Many of the rioters have been seen in multiple states, which means they’re commiting crimes across state lines; that makes their crimes a federal matter. So, WHY haven’t the ringleaders not been arrested? Holly Zoller, the one who rented the U-Haul truck to distribute rioting supplies in Louisville, was in Charlottesville, VA too. Many of the other rioters have been seen in multiple states. So WHY haven’t they been arrested?

                      I’ll go even farther. Why hasn’t George Soros been arrested? Shoot, it was a NY Times HEADLINE proclaiming that he’d given $220 MILLION to these a-holes; what he’s done is a matter of public record, for crying out loud! Why hasn’t HE been arrested? Why haven’t his assets been frozen? Why haven’t the assets of his front organizations not been frozen? Why hasn’t funding to the rioters not been cut off? Doing so would starve the beast, as it were; why not do it and put a STOP to all the thuggery? POTUS could have his AG do it that now, and it would be perfectly legal; plus, it doesn’t make martyrs of any of the BLM thugs. Why not do that? If the funding were cut off, these a-holes would stop rioting tomorrow.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      These are interesting – and serious – assertions. They may well be true. But OM is obliged to follow legal process, i.e., investigate and indict if warranted. Soros is an evil person, no question. And no question, has poured money toward leftist political causes. But the question there is whether that – as such – is criminal under the law.

                      I’m not cheerleading or the Orange Man – or Goldenhair, if you prefer – so much as fearful of what the other man will do if he replaces Goldenhair.

              • But you have to understand the feminist/marxist/lefist view. Personal choices should have no consequences unless of course you’re a productive member of society and a tax donkey in which case they do especially when you resist leftists. See how easy that is?

                Anyway this whole mess is the result of prohibition twice removed. But we’re not supposed to look at that any more than her choices.

                • Brent,

                  I agree. At least with Prohibition, the gov’t had enough respect for the COTUS to AMEND it first! The War on Drugs (really the UN’s, since it was THEIR four schedules of controlled subtances Nixon used) was never even debated in Congress, let alone a Constitutional amendment passed, as was done for Prohibition…

                  • MM, that wasn’t respect to the Constitution- it was desecration! The Constitution dictates the form of government and it’s limits of power, and defines some of our rights.

                    By adding a code of law to it, which restricts not the government, but rather the conduct of private citizens, was essentially to void the document- and thus, it has been all downhill ever since, to the point where the Constitution is literally paid no heed.

                    • Nunzio,

                      The COTUS stipulates what the fed gov’t can and cannot do; if it’s not IN the COTUS, the feds can’t do it-end of story. Ergo, to do Prohibition, they needed to amend the COTUS, thus allowing them to control alcohol. That’s what I meant by respecting the COTUS.

                      This was never done with The War on Drugs. Hell, it was never even debated in Congress, let alone a law passed! Tricky Dick simply decreed it into existence. And it’s not even his own; it’s a UN creation, and Nixon even used the four schedules of controlled substances the UN promulgated. Oh, and here’s the best part: The War on Drugs is 50 years old now! It lasted far longer than Prohibition ever did…

                  • The COTUS is a useless document, since it has failed to prevent it’s own corruption. Its fatal flaw is it does not provide for external enforcement. Leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. While at the time of its enactment it was understood that the states were that external enforcement, it was never codified. Lincoln made sure that it never would be.

                    • JWK,

                      The COTUS isn’t working because, as Madison said, it is suitable only for a moral and religious people, i.e. people who have a moral code and the inner restraint that comes with that. While we can say our society is many things, we’re NOT a moral and religious people; any society allowing the murder of 60 million babies is anything but! THAT’S the core problem…

                    • Hi Mark,

                      I’ve heard this refrain many times and while I agree the Constitution is better than some other forms of tyranny, it is still tyrannical – and designed to be so.

                      Lawyers wrote it. Lawyers understand the importance of using just the right word. It is telling that these lawyers used such words as “necessary and proper” – and “general welfare.”

                      According to whom? As defined by whom?

                      Why, by themselves!

                    • Eric,

                      What good is the meaning of words when the meanings have changed? I’m old enough to remember when the word, gay, had its original meaning. Hell, I LIVED through the change of meaning in middle school!

                      But to get to COTUS’ real meaning, one must read the Federalist Papers, which were written by those who crafted the COTUS. They delve in to their thinking, their rationale for doing this or that.

                      That said, when there isn’t a moral and religious people to FOLLOW what the COTUS says, we’re screwed.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      I’m very familiar with the Federalist Papers. They were written by people like Hamilton who favored a “robust”central government. And they got it.

                      Hamilton was many things, but not stupid or a fool. He and his friends knew precisely what they were doing when they chose the words they used.

                      Hamilton, et al basically wanted the British system sans the hereditary monarch. With an elected king.

                      Remember who urged the use of troops – and the use of hanging – against the rural PA farmers who used whiskey as money and resented being told they “owed” the government currency.

                    • Eric,

                      While much, if not all, of what you say is true, the fact of the matter is that our original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, weren’t working.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      Working... according to whom? This is the question, eh? It worked quite well for those who wished to be left alone, who had no desire for “robust” or any other government.

                      The Articles weren’t working… for certain people, chiefly the rich mercantile class of which Hamilton was a member, who decided for all people that “robust” government was “needed.”

                      This brings us to the real question, which is – simply: By what right does any man rule another man?

                      The answer is, he has no such right. He may, of course, have power – which can be used to efface the right.

                    • Eric,

                      Each state had its own money. Furthermore, each state put TARIFFS on products from other states! That is to say that, if I were in NJ and wanted to buy Yuengling beer from PA, I’d pay a tariff on it. Economically, things were a mess.

                      That’s why the Philly convention was originally convened in 1787; it was to tweak the Articles, because things were a mess, at least economically speaking. When the convention started, the Articles were scrapped, and we got the COTUS.

                      I still submit that, if the Feds stuck to the enumerated powers of the COTUS, it’s a wonderful document.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      Yes, they did. And? The solution for a problem is . . . a larger problem? A problem, you can’t legally avoid? Which would you rather deal with? Having to hassle with different paper script one state to another – or government confiscating your script, wherever you go?

                      As far as the rest: The authors of the government (i.e., the authors of the Constitution) gave themselves the power “to lay and collect taxes.” In other words,to steal to fund the government activities they decreed to be “necessary and proper,” etc.

                    • Eric,

                      WRT taxes, the original taxes in the COTUS were tariffs and excise taxes. You weren’t taxed unless you bought something. They were somewhat similar to sales taxes.

                      These taxes weren’t direct like the income tax is. They didn’t require interaction with the gov’t, either. When we do our income taxes, we HAVE to interact with the gov’t, and share our intimate details with them. Under the original taxes in the COTUS, that wasn’t necessary. I much prefer the tariffs and excise taxes to the income tax. The income tax wasn’t part of the COTUS though; in fact, direct taxes were PROHIBITED by the COTUS! That’s why the 16A was passed.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      Yes, but the principle of taxing was established thereby; creating the precedent for future, additional forms of tax-theft.

                      Certainly, I prefer tariffs and excises over income taxes. But a tax is still a tax.

                  • Hi Mark!

                    The core issue here – which goes much deeper than arbitrarily illegal “drugs” – is whether it is morally legitimate to forcibly interfere with any peaceful, voluntary transaction between consenting adults. I say it is not because I own only myself and cannot, accordingly, assert ownership over another human being. Which I would be doing, were I to assert – by forcibly insisting – that another person not consume or buy or sell anything he wishes to consume or buy or sell, provided he does not harm me in a tangible sense thereby.

                    He has every right to harm himself, if he wishes. My rights are are limited to offering advice, if I feel it is warranted – and to avoid people whose choices I do not agree with.

                    And that should be the end of the mattter.

        • RE: ““Bad company” shouldn’t incur a death sentence.”

          The thing is though in vast majority of media reporting certain demographics are forgiven for the company they keep and their decisions while others are held responsible.

          People who are libertarian minded have been against the war on some drugs, the raids, and so on for decades. And what’s the mainstream response? “you’re a paranoid tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist” or “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about” or something to the effect of don’t hang out with people involved in such things and you’ll be okay.

          But for other people, it’s a 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

          Some people are expected to be adults and adapt to the reality of the situation with the government regardless if the government is right or wrong and other people are allowed to be children and aren’t even expected to understand what they are doing.

    • Hi Krista,

      “The law”is immaterial to me because it (as such) nihilistic. My concern is for what is right. If the warrant was served on the wrong address, that’s both wrong as regards the law and as regards what is right.

      Whether “the law” was “passed by the democratically elected government” means nothing, morally. What it means actually is: Some people agreed that “x” should be illegal – and that “y” should be punished for violating “x.” It means three wolves “democratically” deciding that sheep is for supper.

      If someone tries to enter my place at 3 in the morning, it’s on them if I am freaked out and fire at them. You don’t barge into anyone’s home in the middle of the night and expect them to indulge you. The neighbor/emergency thing doesn’t hold water for me. Here’s why: These Hut! Hut! Hut! raids are conducted with “shock and awe” tactics. They may have knocked – but this is usually very cursory and followed almost immediately by the kicking down of the door accompanied by screaming…which no neighbor would do.

      The fundamental moral issue is using these violent tactics to “get” people for doing what they have every right to do… if they are free human beings and not cattle owned by the government.

      • I don’t disagree with anything that you said, Eric. Free people should be able to do whatever they want – as long as they don’t hurt someone else. The police shouldn’t care what drugs someone is using or selling inside one’s own home as long as everyone involved is an adult that is making free choices. And we have certainly lost a lot of freedom as a result of the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror.” But given the laws that we have, would you have wanted the police to be charged with murder for shooting her? And no, the police were not at the wrong address. Her address was the address that the warrant was issued for.

        Should we hold the police to account and send them to prison when they violate what we consider is the right thing morally? Even if they followed all the laws? It seems like we really need to change the law more than anything. The good news is that we have made some very positive strides toward legalizing drugs with the move in many states to legalize marijuana.

        • Hi Krista!

          An interesting thought exercise comes to mind. Imagine an AGW is at home, asleep. It is 3 in the morning. A stranger bangs on the door, shouting loudly. The AGW, startled and afraid, fires at what he perceives to be a threat to his safety. Do you suppose the AGW would be charged criminally? How about the person who banged on his door at 3 in the morning?

          The macro issue here is that many people are simply tired of all this Hut! Hut! Hutting!

          Count me among them.

          Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=33&v=oMIhuCVGgIw&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=TheTimmyz

          Feel the hate?

          I despise BLM, as I have said. But if that AGW were being torn to pieces by them, I would smile and keep on walking.

          • Eric,

            Those same BLM thugs would tear US to pieces too! You realize that, don’t you? Also, they’re engaging in violent revolution, so as to usher in communist paradise here. Ergo, if it’s between BLM and the cops, I’ll cheer for the cops, TYVM…

            • Marky, only if they are allowed to. Believe me, certain feds KNOW who is funding them (No Such Agency being one of those who know), and exactly what is involved. They have the exact details, and all that is required is the political will to engage them. But they are serving their masters well. This could be stopped in a matter of a few hours at most. But it wouldn’t serve the interests of the DNC and The Resistance.

              • BJ,

                I just posted this on Gab. I’ll repost it here…

                Pres. Trump’s LACK of action on Antifa and BLM prompts a thinking person to ask some logical questions. WHY has George Soros not been arrested? Why hasn’t he been charged? Why does he still have his US citizenship, when his stated aim is to OVERTHROW our nation? Why haven’t his assets been frozen? Why haven’t the assets of his front organizations not been frozen? Why hasn’t the gov’t taken steps to dry up the funding for these riots, hmmm?

                You say that DoJ and FBI can’t move. Why? Why does Chris Wray still have a job? Why does William “Swamp Rat” Barr (an appropos nickname, given his history) still have a job? Why haven’t they been fired? Why doesn’t POTUS say his ICONIC line to both of them? Why doesn’t he replace both of those worthless SOBs?

                Let’s go even farther with tech censorship. Why hasn’t Big Tech been charged or had any action taken against it? Ah, but we can’t take anti-trust or Section 230 actions against them, because they’d take too long! What about something indirect, such as the actions taken against Al Capone? You remember that Al Capone was NOT tried for murder, theft, rape, robbery, assault, or anything else, don’t you? How DID they get him? They got him on tax evasion, Folks!

                Something similar could’ve been done with the Big Tech CEOs. Remember how, in 2018, they all testified in front of Congress? Do you remember how they all said that they weren’t engaging in censorship? Remember how they said this with straight faces? Do you remember that, by this time, both Laura Loomer and Alex Jones had already been BANNED? Wasn’t that prima facie evidence of engaging in censorship? So why not try the SOBs for lying to Congress? Had this been done; had an example been made of them; Big Tech might not be doing what it’s doing now.

                So, that prompts me to ask more salient questions. Does POTUS WANT all this? Why can’t I draw this conclusion when he’s done NOTHING about any of this BS? Sorry, but I’m not sure I can support Pres. Trump, given his lack of action; I can’t support him when he’s HELPING, not hurting, globalism. That is all.

                • Marky, we’ve gone over this before. Soros is one of the Oligarchs. Their factions own and control the world. The politicians are fronts for the various Oligarch factions. Democracy is a scam. Its the front to keep the rubes pacified, and productive. The various countries are tax farms, whose productive efforts are skimmed by the gangs of thieves and murderers writ large (governments).
                  The tech giants are the ultimate expression of the results of crony capitalism, in the digital age. Vast concentrations of power and wealth, that would not be possible, in their current form, without the sanction and protection of government. The system is corrupt to its very core. It has been since before any of us where born. Its not a question of getting the “right” people in to power. Thats a mugs game. The system itself is corrupt and corrupting. Its a Big Club, and you and I aren’t in it.

            • Hi Mark,

              Yes, of course I realize it. I also know AGWs aren’t going to protect me from them. Nor do I want their protection. I’ll provide that myself.

              Remember: They are “law enforcement” and have no legal obligation to protect you.

              • Eric,

                I don’t intend to be anywhere Antifa or BLM are operating. That said, if there’s a mass showdown between them and the cops, I’ll cheer for the cops. I wish that these thugs were SHOT!

                • Hi Mark,

                  I have no love for the BLM and Antifa thugs. But I am under no illusion about AGWs, who are in many ways more thuggish since their thuggery is “lawful” and if I defend myself against them, I’m the “criminal”!

                  At least the BLM and Antifa thugs aren’t enforcing Diapering laws.

        • Krista, the law is the whim, of who ever is in power at a given time .
          Good/bad/indifferent. It doesn’t matter its still the law. Might I remind you that the German Nazi police and military was also following German law in their actions? But simply “following orders” was no defense, when Germany lost the war.

          That is why, many of the Founders insisted that it is the DUTY of a jury to judge the law, as well as a potential crime. Oddly enough, that fact is seldom if ever taught to people. In fact, judges get VERY irate when that subject is brought up. Its called jury nullification. Given the fact that most judges worship the Law, this is hardly surprising. Its just another of those realities of power, that most people remain willfully ignorant of.

    • Would I wait to see who was breaking down my door at 3 a.m. before I started shooting? There’s no goddamned way I’m waiting. They’re *breaking down my door.* They’re not knocking politely. They’re not ringing the bell and waiting a reasonable interval before trying again. They’re *breaking down the door.* There’s zero possibility that they’re a motorist whose car has broken down, or a woman running from a rapist, or a kid playing a prank. Those people don’t break down your door. Anyone who gives an intruder the benefit of the doubt in that situation deserves whatever he gets.

  18. Eric, I agree that the AGWs should have behaved better, but, they were dealing with known drug trafficers, known to be armed, knowned to have lot’s of cash, in general, not your typical stand up citizens.
    Some of your comments don’t make sense
    – ‘No-Knock’ Warrant – No they knocked:
    Question: Was Breonna Taylor asleep at the time of the shooting?
    Answer: No.
    Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, told police in an interview that he and Taylor were awake: “She’s like, ‘Who is it?’ Loud at the top of her lungs. No response. So I am like, ‘What the heck?'” he said.
    Police said they knocked and, after getting no response, used force to enter the apartment, according to a statement from Mattingly.
    “Banged on the door, no response,” Mattingly said. “At that point, we started announcing ourselves, ‘Police, please come to the door. Police! We have a search warrant.'”
    Walker said he did not hear officers announce themselves, that he and Taylor thought they were being robbed and that after the door was breached, he fired a shot.
    “The door, like, comes off the hinges, so I just let off on shot — I still can’t see who it is,” he said.
    – Legal warrant [see below]
    – Cops had no business being there – Taylor was handling [ex-boyfriend’s drug $$] while he’s in jail

    Here are the facts as I understand them.
    Well Tweeted by Matt Walsh
    Everything you’re hearing about Breonna Taylor is a lie. It was not a no knock warrant. They did announce. The boyfriend fired first. And by the way, Breonna was apparently involved in her ex boyfriend’s drug enterprise. All of this info has been publicly available for weeks.
    3:19 PM · Sep 23, 2020
    Matt Walsh
    Replying to @MattWalshBlog
    The ex boyfriend said in jailhouse phone calls that Taylor was handling his cash and had thousands of dollars in drug money in her apartment
    3:21 PM · Sep 23, 2020
    Matt Walsh
    Let’s walk through the steps. Officers obtain a legal warrant. Officers act on said warrant. Officers announce themselves. Officers enter residence. Officers return fire once fired upon.

    Where in this series of events does a crime occur — much less a racist execution?

    • Hi Mark,

      Except they had the wrong address. These imbeciles can’t even get that right? Isn’t that the minimum “due diligence” that ought to be expected? Required?

      As far as “drug traffickers”… so? Why should it be a crime to sell anything to people who freely wish to buy it? It’s especially absurd when one considers that only some “drugs” are prohibited to sell and buy – even though the legal ones (e.g., alcohol) are objectively more harmful – if that’s the standard. Of course, “harmful” isn’t a proper standard in a free country as regards adults making choices regarding themselves, which is no one else’s rightful business.

      Is it “harmful” to smoke crack? Surely. It is also harmful to guzzle a dozen HFC sodas every day, yet no one gets Hut! Hut! Hutted! over that.

      Which circles us back to – none of this would have happened if it weren’t cause for a Hut! Hut! Hutting! to sell/buy whatever the hell you want to.

    • “Police! Please come to the door!” LOL. Cops don’t say “please” in the middle of the night. They don’t say “please” to people they think are sub-animal drug-dealing scum. Not when they’re kitted out in body armor and spoiling for a fight and already have their guns out. When a cop’s lips are moving, he’s lying. “We announced ourselves.” “A CI told us he saw.” “I was in fear for my life.” “He took a bladed stance.” “He tensed his body.” “The chihuahua charged me.” Even when they capture themselves on their own body-cams doing something, they still lie about it. Cops lie so often in court that there’s a name for it: “testilying.” They lie so often that nothing they say should be presumed to be the truth unless it’s backed up with video filmed from five separate angles. They should be assumed to be lying because it’s their default operating condition.

  19. Eric,

    I have to call BS here! One, Breonna Taylor was cavorting with a known drug dealer; she was cavorting with a criminal! Sorry, but if one sleeps with dogs, one can’t cry when waking up with fleas! Was her death tragic? Yes. Was is predictable? Yes, because she was running with the wrong crowd. Aesop said that if one associates with bad people, he will be thought of badly; IOW, one is known by the company one keeps. BT, because of her associations, was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, if you sleep with dogs, you can’t be surprised when you wake up with fleas.

    Two, the KY AG said that there WAS a knock by the cops, and that they announced themselves. An independent witness confirmed this. It was BT’s BF who opened fire. Even if the cops are incompetent, authoritarian assholes, you doni’t fire on them if you want to live! That’s not a good recipe for survival. Arguing with the cops during an interaction is not smart; it’s not the time or place for it, either. The time and place to do that is in court. I’m no fan of the cops, but arguing with them, let alone pulling a gun on them, isn’t a good idea. They have the gun, the badge, and sanction from the state. Again, bring this up in court, and address any police misconduct there.

    Thridly, the Antifa/BLM protests are ORGANIZED; they’re deliberate! George Soros and other NWO billionaires are behind this. Shoot, there was a U-Haul truck passing out riot supplies before the grand jury decision was announced; these terrorists were going to riot no matter what! Even if the cops had been charged with murder (a dubious charge, given that they were fired upon first), the riots were going to happen! I’d like to see the cops turned loose to clean up this shit! Furthermore, I’d like Pres. Trump and his AG, Bill Barr, to investigate who’s really behind Antifa and BLM.

    • Hi Mark,

      I agree with you as regards the BLM thugs. I do not agree that anyone deserves to be Hut! Hut! Hutted! over the selling/buying of arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” That is one of the chief reasons AGW’ing is out of control.

      As far as the rest: If they had the wrong address – which is what I’ve read – then it’s entirely understandable that they came under fire. Imagine being dead asleep and then hearing someone banging on your door and yelling at 3 in the morning. I’d reach for my gun, too.

      I think the whole thing hinges on the address. If they did indeed have the wrong one, then the whole mess is the result of their incompetence, which is criminal given the stakes.

      I despise BLM. But I despise apologizing for incompetent, trigger-happy heroes even more.

      • Eric,

        I think that drugs should be legalized; using them is a vice, not a crime, much like drinking alcohol or gambling. I think that they should be legalized for a whole host of reasons. I agree with David Knight in that police reform starts with having fewer laws to enforce, and we can start by legalizing drugs and ending the UN’s Drug War.

        That said, if you’re hassled by a cop, don’t argue with him, let alone pull a weapon; that’s just BEGGING for trouble or worse! If the cops are wrong, then argue the matter in court.

        Finally, though Breonna’s death is tragic, the fact of the matter is that she ran with the wrong crowd. The fact of the matter is that drugs are, at present, illegal; the fact of the matter is that, because of that, the people selling drugs use violence, threats, intimidation, and even murder to conduct business. Whatever one thinks about the Drug War, the fact of the matter is that people ENGAGING in the use of threats, intimidation, violence, and murder are BAD PEOPLE! Breonna Taylor associated with such people, thus putting her in the wrong place at the wrong time; as a result, she was killed in the crossfire.

        • Hi Mark,

          I’m not arguing that it’s prudent to draw down on an AGW; I’m arguing that the AGWs created this mess if they did in fact Hut! Hut! Hut! the wrong address. That is simply inexcusable. Indefensible. Incompetent beyond words.

          These idiots can’t even get that right? What else do they get wrong?

          Remember the mongoloid in Texas who barged into the wrong apartment and shot the poor dude sitting in his own living room? This sort of thing isn’t uncommon – and it’s one of the many reasons AGWs have lost the sympathy of people like me – who have no sympathy for BLM whatsoever.

          Keep in mind that standard you and I are held to as regards criminal negligence.

          • Pizza delivery drivers manage to find the right addresses all the time; I know, because I was one in college. That said, WTF can’t the cops do the same, especially if they’re so “trained”?

    • I’ve read somewhere that it was the 1960’s/70’s NY State Nelson Rockefeller Drug Laws that established the principle that because drug dealers might flush their inventories down the toilet if warrants were constitutionally executed, we must allow ANY HOME INVADING MOB–be they tax feeding AGWs or not–to shout “Police!”, knock on your door, and wait 2 seconds before breaking down your door, and we must never defend ourselves from these mobs because it might be an AGW mob. This was all the logic and fear necessary to convince all conservatives that they are duty bound to cower in fear and pray the invaders are AGW’s who won’t kill them if they don’t shoot back.

      The sad part is that this absurd principle NEVER crosses the minds of Beck, Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens or any of the heroes of my diaper-defying friends and family allies. They are as incapable of countenancing a cost/benefit analysis of mandating submission to possible non-AGW home invaders versus the Karen-like thrills they get enforcing their precious drug laws as Fauci is incapable of weighing the costs of his lockdown orders with the joy HE receives pushing people around.

      Every time the Left sics the cops on the Right, I think maybe this time the Right will learn something–especially this time when they are being treated with such cruelty. But no matter how much they’re humiliated, there seems to be no limit to what they’ll put up with. The race riots seem perfectly staged to consolidate conservative cop kissing in case it somehow dawns on a few of them who the people are who padlock their businesses and force them to wear diapers in the Cartel businesses that are allowed to remain.

      • Wolfgang, one of the reasons that “conservatives” almost worship the Enforcer class, is because they are as collectivist as the Progs are. They also realize that without the Enforcers, they could not inflict their personal ideology on everyone else. Coercive government, rests on the power of the enforcer class. Mao had it right, when he said something like; “Political power flows from the barrel of a gun”. That is true of all coercive government.

        • Yep, BJ. Seen in a comment under an article about California raising their state income tax, and imposing yet more new taxes, and why people are leaving in mass:

          “If you come to TX don’t vote Democrat! We like limited government and love our cops….”!!!!

          Talk about a contradiction!

          • Exactly. “Limited” government never stays “limited”. Being a little bit statist, is like being a little bit pregnant. One either is, or isn’t. If one is, than of course they love cops. Their system literally couldn’t function without them.

            By the way, here you go… ^^

          • Morning, Nunz!

            Part of this reverence for cops among conservatives is the result of an unexamined premise on their part. They don’t really “love cops.” They love peace, order and the dealing with of violent cretins. I support that, too. But I don’t confuse that (i.e., peacekeeping) with “law enforcement,” as many conservatives do.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here