And it is this claim of power, more than anything else – more than Obama Care, more than attempts at further restrictions on guns – that has put us on a very clear, inevitable path to a civil war because it is an attempt to subject us to absolute despotism. All of the legal infrastructure is in place. The Supreme Court had a chance to put the martial law genie back in the bottle in the summer of 2004, when it heard the Hamdi case. But instead they rubber stamped this claimed power to apply the laws of war to the American people by declaring “[t]here is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.” That is when the Court crossed the Rubicon once and for all, and put us on the path to civil war, As I noted above, if a person can be held as an enemy combatant, they can also just be killed on sight.
A frightening conclusion, to be sure. But it’s hard to argue against it.
Over my 49 years on this Earth, I have grown weary of conspiratorial language like “Did you hear that the government is spying on people through their smoke detectors? Did you hear about the Skulls? Freemasons are trying to take over the world!” But what I have seen during both the current administration and the former is more and more out in the open statements from government actors themselves their willingness to actually be dictators, to plunge us into absolute despotism. And not just willingness, but eagerness. AG Holder’s unbelievable unwillingness to give Ted Cruz a straight answer of “NO!” when he asked whether Holder thought it was constitutional for the US government to kill a US citizen on US soil without due process was amazing and exposed him as the totalitarian he is, likely unwilling to constrain his boss by that inconvenient founding document, the only thing that gives either of them even a shred of legitimacy.
Stewart Rhodes, educated at Yale Law School, with reference to an important paper he wrote while at Yale, makes an excellent, convincing, but frightening case, that there is no turning back. RTWT.
Here is my latest to response to Curtis, whom I’ve been having an exchange with lately here. Again, I’m making this a separate post, since it’s so long.
I may continue to engage Curtis if he responds, but mostly my job is done. I didn’t know he was a cop when I invited him over here after a short exchange at Uncle’s place. But when he stated that he was, I saw an opportunity to find out where at least one cop stood on a few things I felt were important in an Oath Keeping Peace Officer: a) OathKeepers, b) Mike Vanderboegh’s Open Letter to American Law Enforcement., c) citizens right to video record police action, d) elimination of the use of ‘disorderly conduct’, ‘resisting arrest’, and similar charges that are usually piled on when the thought is other charges won’t stick (i.e.: a trumped up charge as a pretext for an arrest).
In my opinion, Curtis failed in all but (c), with regard to understanding what a truly free country would look like. I think his view may be the majority view among law enforcement, but I could be wrong. I hope so.
Curtis, I do hope you will reflect on our exchange and consider changing your outlook. Civil society could depend on it.
Well, sure I invited you here, but it was certainly not for a private conversation. It was before I knew you were a cop, sure, but I do want others to see what at least one cop thinks of the issues I’ve brought up.
Please, if I missed responding to anything you asked that you’d like an answer to, let me know. I’m more than willing to stay engaged. I can go back and re-read what we’ve each posted, but the posts are getting long, so it’s hard to find the nuggets I might have missed. That said, it’s not my intent to drag this on. I think you’ve made yourself clear.
You must understand. I’m not seeking to “agree to disagree,” so to speak. That’s simplistic. Though it’s not the case with everything I’ve asked, you might consider viewing some of my questions as a winnowing fork. Perhaps someone knows you personally who also sees your responses. They may need to know where you stand. Perhaps they didn’t know what your views were until now. Though it’s fine if you wanted to talk about one thing in Vanderboegh’s letter, it would have been better if you also answered my question about it. “Whom will you serve,” in the context of that letter? Because if you cannot answer that you honestly will stand with the David Olofsons and the Davidians and the Vicky Weavers of the world and not with the BATFE, the Lon Horiuchis *spit*, the TSA gropers, and VIPR and other 4th amendment violators, then you are setting yourself up as an enemy of liberty. When I say I’m not seeking to “agree to disagree,” please understand that I am not saying that it’s my way or the highway. What I’m trying to say is that when those who think they have authority over us “disagree,” that can often mean innocent people die. And for that reason, free people should be wary of anyone with a badge, a uniform, and a gun who has specifically expressed that he “disagrees” about whether or not he should be treated specially.
On the extra measure of protection issue, it appears you didn’t read the links I provided on the whole Martha Boggs / Stacey Campfield debate. That’s apparent from this:
There are people out in the world that target certain people specifically because of their job and I think that is a separate crime unto itself similar the consideration that is given to people when they are singled out due to race, religion, sexual orientation and age.
If you go read what Linoge and Rich Hailey wrote regarding Boggs and Campfield, you’ll know where I stand on that. And I don’t think you’ll find many in the cause of liberty who support even the current regime of forced association and special penalties for ‘hate’ crimes based on the reason behind it (whether racist, sexist, or whatever).
You see, here’s the bottom line, that applies to the freedom of association issue as well. It’s none of anyone’s damn business why I might decide to not associate with anyone, no matter what the reason. Of course, attacking someone without provocation sort of nullifies the ‘none of your damn business’ assertion. Or maybe not. There is the 5th Amendment that basically does not allow you to force me to tell you. So if someone violently attacks a cop because he is a cop, yet never says anything about it, not you, the courts, nor anyone else has any legal or moral authority whatsoever to demand an answer to whether or not that was the reason.
[Sort of off topic, but this is why I consider the radical atheists and what I might call absolutist separationists as enemies of liberty. What if I run for office on a platform that includes my faith? At least partly as a result of my faith (but also for biological reasons), I believe that individual, human life begins at conception, and all that follows from that. Should I suffer accusations of violating the principle of separation of church and state, yet a pro-life atheist not? What if I had kept my mouth shut about my faith, but was just as ardent about when I believe life begins? To be blunt, I use the phrase again, it’s none of your damn business how I am informed in forming my values and opinions. Judge them on their merits.]
You say, “However, we are directly put in harm’s way by our community due to the nature of our job. A different punishment is consideration of the nature of our jobs.”
I think there’s a name for this in debating skills, but I don’t remember what it is. It’s missing the middle piece. Sort of like, “1. Start a business, 2. [], 3. PROFIT!”
What I mean is that you being put in harm’s way does not justify additional punishment. The existing, available punishment suffices. Whether you realize it or not, you are implying that because you take additional risks that no one else does, that you do have more value. By the way, if we do a little research, I think we’ll find that delivering pizzas is riskier than being a cop. That’s not a put down, either, it’s simply based on some hearsay comments I’ve heard from various sources. I can think of no other reason what additional risk on your part justifies additional punishment on the part of a perp.
My state decided it was worth making a law concerning the issue and I don’t have a problem with it. You have the right to take issue with it but I don’t agree with you, and it’s not just because I’m a cop. Our country has a lot of other distinctions in this matter in respect to someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation and age. Should all of those be done away with also?
Yup, they should all be done away with. A fellow by the name of Kevin Baker has a blog called The Smallest Minority. The name comes from an Ayn Rand quote that can probably be agreed upon by most libertarians and others interested in liberty: “The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” It’s most definitely something I ascribe to. And that means NO special treatment due to an individual’s group membership. Including whatever profession you happen to be in.
Frankly, for anyone who has any understanding of our form of government as intended by our founding generation and founding documents, it is clear that those who are in the employ of our government have more restrictions placed on them in the execution of their duties than those who don’t.
And though you might not be trying to condescend, you must understand that calling this a mere difference of opinion and saying “cool,” means that maybe I’m not making myself clear. This has to do with where you stand on individual liberty and on our founding principles. Here’s an excellent summary of what I think of tolerance:
No one on God’s green earth has the right to expect that his opinion be respected. What everyone does have is the right to have his own opinion and to express it and to attempt to influence others with rational discussion.
It’s quaint that you keep putting the blame on the people for corruption/bad behavior of government officials. And it’s completely out of line. I have to wonder if you have any clue what’s going on beyond your immediate surroundings. Have you heard the phrase among gun blogs and other freedom oriented blogs that, “we are not voting are way out of this.” One related problem at the federal level is the 17th Amendment. We seem to be functioning a lot like, or at least moving in the direction of a direct democracy, which is nowhere near what our founders envisioned. In fact some expressed disdain for democracy. One of its biggest evil is the tyranny of the majority. How dare you blame the citizens of New Orleans for the criminal police department in operation there, as if the police are not to blame for their own behavior. Every individual cop who participated in disarming a peaceable citizen, every individual cop who abandoned his post, every individual cop who looted abandoned stores was, all by himself, responsible for his own behavior.
As far as waiting to get the whole story, well, cops have something else to worry about these days that they never had to before and that they cannot and should not be able to do anything about. And that is one of the questions I asked: Citizens recording them. You see, we have the raw evidence, and in many of the cases, no additional context is necessary. Some incidents might merit getting more information, but many more every day, it seems, require no additional explanation. Exhibit A, B, and C are the videos of Officer Harless. And there are many more.
What I thought you were saying when you referred to “equal treatment under the law” was if we are off duty we get no special considerations. We should still get speeding tickets or DUI’s. We should be arrested for domestic battery or theft or anything else a civilian would.
Off duty, or on duty, there should be the same consequences for cops and non-cops for speeding, DUI, domestic battery, theft, or anything else. By the way, please shed the notion that I am a civilian, but you are not. Unless you are still an active duty Marine, then you are also a civilian. Terms matter. You use terms that separate you from the people, well, then the more we know about what you think of us. Most certainly, in your role as cop, you are a civilian.
If the people in Indiana have a problem with the way their state/local government is doing something it is their responsibility to fix it.
Again, you’re deflecting blame. This wound up in the Indiana Supreme Court due to disgusting behavior by cops. Yes, the people can try to remove one or more of the idiot justices who voted against enumerated constitutional rights, but that’s a large hurdle. And it’s not hard to see what a Rube Goldberg machine this has become. One of the justices targeted was appointed by the Republican Governor. There are a number of layers separating and protecting the criminal cops who behaved as they did from the individual(s) whom they violated.
You said “Sorry, but “articulable safety concern” doesn’t cut it.” Ok what does cut it? Anything? You are right that it does leave it to officer discretion to deprive someone of their civil rights. Yes that is part of our job and that is why we get training in various areas concerning this issue. Sometimes the lawful performance our duty requires us to deprive a person of their civil rights “if we have probable cause”. An articulable safety concern can be probable cause. If you don’t think it is, what would probable cause be to you?
I think I made clear that if there is probable cause for arrest then that is the only probable cause for disarming a citizen. And mere possession of a firearm can never be considered as the sole probable cause. Otherwise, I guess I’m always subject to being disarmed if I happen to be in the vicinity of a crime and a cop addresses me.
If we abuse that responsibility we are held accountable for it.
I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for proof of that statement.
Maybe not it the manner you would like but we are.
There’s that “more equal than others” equal treatment under the law, again.
“The mere possession of a firearm is not probable cause for anything.” Under most circumstances it isn’t. If that person was found guilty a crime, violent felony only where I am, and had their right to keep and bear arms revoked, then it is. You might not agree with that law, fine, change it. Until then people are still accountable for it.
Well, then, it’s not “mere possession,” is it. Oh, and sure, I’ll just grab a pen and cross out the laws I don’t like and write in ones I do.
Snark aside, as we continue the arduous, multi-decade process of tearing down what the regressives have done to our predecessors over the past century, many cops continue to violate their oaths to constitution by enforcing unconstitutional edicts. That is what OathKeepers is about. Should a law be passed forcing the confiscation of all handguns, will you stand down or will execute the unconstitutional edict.
On the opaqueness of the investigative process when the one being investigated is a cop:
That is a standard all employers, public or private sector, are required to follow. Any public employee still has the right to privacy and due process.
And that is what needs to change regarding government employees. Due process, sure. Privacy, no. Not on anything related to your job, anyhow. I think all legislators, for example, should be forced to wear cameras 24 hours a day. With possible exceptions from bathroom and conjugal visits. 😉
Even if the officer is under investigation for a criminal offence the information surrounding that investigation is not part of the public record until after they are found guilty or not guilty, just like if a civilian was on trial.
There you go with that ‘civilian’ distinction again. You are civilian. Live it. I’ll concede that only if all investigations are done by a prosecutor to determine if the law was broken rather than Internal Affairs to just determine if any rules were broken.
Which oath, the Law enforcement oath or the oathkeepers oath?
Oathkeepers doesn’t have a separate oath. They are calling on those who join to keep the oaths they original took, and add the “10 orders we will not obey” just to clarify a bit of what that oath means.
Ultimately I see it as people patting themselves on the back for doing something that they should have been doing all along. I am the first one hold myself accountable for my integrity and professionalism. Someone on a web page I don’t know and probably never will has no bearing on how I conduct myself. My principals and character do.
Wow. First you dis Vanderboegh’s letter, then OathKeepers as “back patters.” I don’t think you’ve taken much time at all to really understand what either of them are saying. If you did that with OathKeepers, it would be clear to you that this is about making a statement non-cops that you are on their side. Good God, what use is you holding yourself accountable to the rest of us. Some people on a web page that you don’t know and never will? Well, they’re much more than a web page, and you never knowing them is a choice you have made. Many more have chosen to participate. People like me would like to know why you haven’t.
I think you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of Peel’s “the police are the public and the public are the police.” Where the hell do you get that we need you from that? Peel’s statement is simply saying that you only get your legitimacy from the people, and additionally, you are simply hired full time to do what every free man still retains as a right to do himself.
I really hoped I could find the quote, but haven’t yet, but I do remember a recent comment from a blogger that went something like this: “We hire peace officers so that we don’t have to squat at the entrance to our property all day with a spear ready to defend our women and our stuff. But that in no way means we give up the right to squat at the entrance to our property all day with a spear ready to defend our women and our stuff.
Regarding the NOPD Katrina confiscations:
There were also cases of officers and military personnel refusing to disarm people there as it being an unlawful order. Why didn’t Vanderboegh bring that up in his letter also?
I had never heard that. I assume you have sources for that information. Please provide them if you are so inclined. I am truly interested.
If they didn’t vote they can’t use that as an excuse for not having any responsibility in the actions of their own government.
That’s got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. So your presented, for example, with what we might be stuck with at the federal level for President. An incumbent obvious fascist, and an obvious fascist. I chose neither. Let’s say, if Romney wins the nomination and, in my fantasy world, Obama wins the general, but with only 0.55% to Romney’s 0.45% and the rest of the 99% of voters not voting for any president at all. He will have zero legitimacy if more voters were smart enough for such a coup. Who knows what would happen next, but I refuse to accept responsibility for anything Obama does simply because I refused to vote for the White Obama with an R next to his name.
You can point fingers all day long but that community as a whole is responsible from what happened there.
What collectivist tripe. The individuals who were violated were the victims.
I believe you have a bias against law enforcement in general and when you see something about LE in the news you only see what you want to.
I have a bias against “Law Enforcement” when it seems that the institution isn’t all that concerned about making damn sure they’re officers know the law they are attempting to enforce. Heck, there was even a case recently, I believe, where a judge ruled that cops don’t have to know the law. I don’t have the reference, but I will try to dig it up if you are interested.
In some places, they are still called “Peace Officers.” Why the change to “Law Enforcement” in most places? There was a time, that police officers would actively participate in and encourage the training of children in the use of firearms. How many local sheriffs’ offices or police departments would put together a posse today, composed of citizens using their own guns? And don’t forget the case of the Texas A&M shooter where citizens got their hunting rifles out and forced the scum to take cover…with the endorsement of the cops on the scene. Things like that are how it used to be. And that’s what I mean when I say there was a time when we did just fine without law enforcement as it exists today. It wasn’t that long ago that the cops considered each of us an equal and legitimate force against evil.
Seems not so much, anymore.
Change: Fixed a rather bad double negative mistake. Oops.
Addendum: Speeding in hot pursuit is an obvious exception that I left out.
That’s how I signed a farewell note to some fellow employees at a former rather oppressive employer. In that case, I had the choice available to me to leave. With the bill just passed in the House with its criminal penalties for not participating, we’re not being given a choice. The moronic comparison to auto insurance doesn’t even come close. Even in that case, I can choose not to drive, and some people in fact can’t drive for one reason or another, so don’t have auto insurance. There is no penalty. By simply living and breathing we are being required to pay for something most of us don’t want. Or at least we don’t want government approved insurance.
Mike at Sipsey Street posts his latest to reiterate that we are not to fire first.
I’ve had no confusion about this since he first starting writing about Fort Sumter.
However, I think the question in many of our minds is, “how will we know?”
What I mean is, the FedGov and the complicit state run media will most certainly distort or outright lie about the reason for the standoff with those ‘anti-government oath-whatever-amajigs’.
How can we be sure that if a standoff takes place due to the sequential events listed below, that the truth will get out?
a) bills pass both houses and result is signed into law b) citizen oath keeper unenrolls from existing health insurance as a protest c) tax time comes and, against the advice of citizen’s tax adviser, citizen refuses to submit to $15,000 fine d) citizen is contacted by FedGov informing them that he must pay the fine and asking why it wasn’t paid e) citizen informs FedGov of his refusal to submit to this affront to his God given liberty f) FedGov officials arrive on the ‘compound’ (state run media word for ‘more than 2 acres’) to take citizen to jail to await show trial g) citizen tells two FedGov officials at his door to go pound sand and slams the door h) FedGov breaks down door with drawn weapons and one of them fires at ‘armed individual’ who only had a gun in a holster. He misses and citizen draws and fires, killing both officials i) a perimeter is established, and media is called to the scene to witness federal officials’ show of force in apprehending ‘anti-government gunman who has holed himself up at his compound.’
All wildly hypothetical, of course, but the point is, I think we all need to be thinking about media contact. And new media will be essential.
I propose:
As much surveillance as you can afford at your place of residence, including audio and outside cameras if possible. There are many possible ways to set this up, but the key here will be collecting the video on a computer where it can be processed, cut into smaller manageable chunks and archived. Be sure to have remotely hosted servers (virtual servers like Amazon’s cloud offering can be acceptable) and have video copied to it automatically on regular (or continuous) intervals. Security including encryption is essential.
At regular intervals, unless you intervene before the interval is up, the remotely hosted server should be set up to post video to Youtube, but also other on-line video services and sent to friends and family, or someone else, possibly, if you don’t want to unwittingly implicate someone who doesn’t want to be involved.
What I’m talking about here is sort of a dead man switch. If you are not able to prevent the posting, emailing, etc. of your surveillance video, then it will get posted.
That’s just a rough idea. I plan on doing something like this myself and will work out the details. I may have to suggest a less public forum for discussions of the details.
Update: I should also add that it would be a good idea to record yourself, Youtube style, explaining at each step of the way what you are doing, and why you are doing it. I.e.: first one might be recorded when you first unenroll from your insurance. That way, anybody viewing the surveillance of a FedGov attack will have the full context.
I may have more of a report later, but this is my favorite pair (out of the very few I took) of photos from the march in DC yesterday. I met up with some Three Percenters and Oath Keepers (with a surprising contingent from Massachusetts) around 9:00am in front of the White House. This woman had a sign in honor of Joe Wilson’s comment that was, though inappropriate for the forum, most definitely, true. Here’s the before: And here is the after: Her plan was to get as many signatures as possible and send it to Joe Wilson as a thank you. I never dreamed how many she would get. As you can see, the signatures completely cover the white space. People even started signing the back of it and filling that up! Also, here’s another one where I’m trying to show the size of the crowd: You can see the Washington monument in the background. I’m told the crowd went all the way back to it and more people were still flowing in. Estimates varied from 1.2 million to 1.6 million. Will they listen? If they don’t, then it’s worth taking note of what one sign said at this rally: “Plan A: Peaceful restoration of the Constitution. Plan B: Restoration of the Constitution.” And that *wasn’t* from a Threeper or an Oath Keeper. More people are waking up to the seriousness of current political climate. We were handing out Oath Keeper push cards and had several in depth conversations with people from all walks of life and I don’t think we got a single negative reaction. Please pray for Plan A to be successful. Plan B won’t be fun for anyone.
I’ll be heading to Washington D.C. this weekend for the Tea Party March on Washington on September 12. That’s the generic reason, of course, as there are a number of liberty oriented groups that are congregating there on the 12th. Another notable group is the Oath Keepers which I hope to hook up with and, possibly, take the Oath for the first time, since I’ve never been in a position to take it before.
But my specific reasons are related, of course, to the Three Percenters that will be there. I have no big signs or any real clear plan, but I do hope to at least print out and laminate some makeshift Threeper Patches, so I can at least be recognized by other Threepers.
I do hope to have some good pictures and video of the event, however, so there may, possibly be something interesting to read about here. 🙂
The sad and ironic thing about this event is though we say we will not disarm, we must disarm before entering D.C. or we will likely be arrested, due the unconstitutional edicts that the masters of that domain have instituted.
