Austin Police Chief Would Have Been More Thuggish

I saw this piece from a link on David Codrea's War On Guns blog. I originally saw this Story on The Blaze yesterday. Honestly, commenting on Thugs acting thuggishly is getting boring. It is hard to be outraged anymore because the thuggery is getting so blatant and so common.

 

image from The Daily Texan

 So a young woman, 24-year-old Amanda Jo Stephen, decides to go out for a run in Austin. Austin is a beautiful city and a nice place to go for a run if you are so inclined. The weather is warm. The people are friendly. You might stop in route and get a snow cone or take a dip in Barton Springs while you're out. The police... well, they are getting a reputation and it ain't a good one. It looks like several officer happened to be writing jay-walking citations at 24th and San Antonio Streets (slow month guys?) when Amanda happened by. She apparently was wearing her headphones and listening to something motivational while running. The cops saw Amanda cross the street and said stop. Amanda, being in her "zone" naturally didn't hear them. The next thing she knows she is grabbed by the arm and has no idea why. The rest is predictable. She behaved like a woman outraged at being abused by a stranger in a State Employee's costume. She was arrested and charged with “failure to identify”, and “failure to obey a pedestrian control device”.

Think about the term "Pedestrian Control Device" and imagine what that could mean.


Now, though, it seems the chief of police in Austin where the original incident occurred says he would have been harder on the woman. Chief Acevedo is quoted in the Daily Texan as saying,

“I don’t buy that you can’t hear an officer yelling at you to stop,”...  “I’ll give the benefit of the doubt initially, but when the officer is right by you and can see the hat and he’s looking at your face, you should be able to know what’s going on.” (emphasis mine) You know, the officer's word is golden. His word is to be taken at face value because he wears a Super Hero Costume and bears the Magic Shield. He can't be wrong.

and,

“All that young lady had to do when she was asked for her information was to provide it by law, “...  “Instead of doing that, she decided to throw [herself] to the ground – officers didn’t sit her down – and she did the limp routine.”

First, no one is required by law to produce any form of State issued identification just because another person demands it. A person violates the law when he refuses to identify himself AFTER he has been formally placed under arrest. If a  cop says, "Why don't you show me some I.D., your response should be, "Am I under arrest?"

Second, the officer's word is golden. It is Gospel. Acevedo cannot fathom that there is another version of "the truth" because his officers all told thew same story. Imagine that!

and,

“Quite frankly, she wasn’t charged with resisting, and she was lucky I wasn’t the arresting officer because I wouldn’t have been quite as generous.”

Apparently, Acevedo would have taken the opportunity to stack on as many charges as he could think up. Amanda was "lucky" you see. She was lucky that she was snatched up by the police without warning. She was lucky that a stranger put his hands on her. She was lucky that her day was ruined and she will now have to go to court and justify her freedom to go out for a run. She was lucky that Austin Policemen are such super-duper good guys who would never do such a thing, because Chief Acevedo would.

Is Barry's Foreign Student I.D. for Real? Anyone Know?

This is new to me. Someone sent it to me in email. I do not do Facebook. I was wondering if anyone has confirmation of this?

Is there anyone from Columbia, or who knows someone at Columbia, who can confirm this?

More Sandy Hook Fraud Information.

Just listen to what this man says. Then ask yourself, is there more you need to know? It is valid information and valid questions. Many of us in the Liberty Sphere already know this stuff. There are many who do not. Share it widely.

There is a part three on Youtube.com if you haven't heard enough already.

Policemen in Electra, Texas Harass a citizen... Because They Can

And then knowingly file false charges. Filing a false charge is the same as perjury. Perjury is a felony. These policemen appear to commit felonies with impunity.


Listen carefully to all the audio. Especially listen to the prosecuting attorney and note his attitude. We have come to expect arrogance and hubris from policemen these days. The video indicates that the entire power structure in Electra, Texas is corrupt. They seem to care for nothing but their own power, and their ability to wield it over whom they choose.

And we are told these are the best in our society. The highest in moral character. The best sumbithces who ever shit between two boots.

Once Again We Look at a North Carolina Cop, Indicted Now, But He Had No Choice...

This comes from Blacklisted News by way of Battlefield USA and gives us an update.

I mentioned this a while back myself.

Now it seems a Grand Jury has Indicted Officer Byron Vassey, who had been on paid administrative leave, since murdering the young man. Did you get that? His department put him on leave, with pay, after he committed murder. He has been charged with Voluntary Manslaughter. A charge which could result in a prison sentence in North Carolina of up to twelve years.

Officer Byron Vassey was in the company of two other officers when he murdered Keith Vidal. Indeed he was the latecomer to the scene. He reportedly said, "We don't have time for this..." and drew his pistol and shot Vidal. Now Vassey is saying, through his attorney, he had no choice but to shoot Vidal because he left his Taser at home. Really, that is what he has said.

"Quote from the Blacklisted News piece, Vassey's lawyer James Payne has said the following, for the record,

“Detective Bryon Vassey exercised the only morally, legally justified duty of protecting the life of a fellow officer and that sadly (ended) the life of young Mr. Keith Vidal,”

Did you get that? Vassey had a moral duty to murder Vidal. He was justified by way of protecting the life of another Officer. As we know, Officer Safety is the Panacea which grants cover to any act of abuse committed by a State employee... or so the State employed Thugs believe. And the lives of State employed Thugs are far more valuable than the lives of mere mortal "civilians".

I ask the question again. I will keep asking until I get a truthful answer. Where were those Good Guy officers, who mean well and want only to do the right thing? What was the reaction of the two policemen who were holding Vidal down when Officer Vassey murdered him?

Did they say, "Whoa Byron, you just shot a kid for no good reason. Gimme yer weapon pal, you're gonna go sit in my cruiser and call your attorney."

Did those other two Super-duper good guys,  who mean well and just want to do the right thing,and are in the vast majority, make sure Officer Vassy was taken down to booking and see that charges were filed against him?

No, Vassey was put on paid administrative leave until a Grand Jury indicted him.

If you were called to assist your neighbor who had a schizophrenic son, and instead of helping, you said, "We don't have time for this..." and murdered him, what would happen to you?

Are policemen a class of super citizen who can't be bothered by the laws which apply to the rest of us?

You Mean Mercury Is Bad For You? Well, Shucks!

I have never believed that filling one's head with mercury is a good thing. Some dentists will replace all of your fillings with a synthetic enamel if you ask them. The hard part is finding a dentist who isn't bought into the lies he was told in medical school.

This comes from The Sleuth Journal. Ten reasons are listed as to why Mercury Amalgam fillings are bad for you, VERY bad for you. It shouldn't really be news to anyone. Maybe more people are waking up. Let us pray that is the case. Is it a conspiracy? No. It is malpractice due to willful ignorance.

Also see this list of facts about mercury.

Now, why would you allow a man to stuff your head full of Mercury? Because you believe he loves you?

See? I Told ya.

                      This is Rand Paul saying, "OK, you caught me. Whatcha gonna do about it?


This link comes from CNN. It is Rand Paul speaking privately to Mitch McConnell. In the video, you can hear Senator Rand Paul state his intention to screw the people who elected him. McConnell stands there nodding and grinning, pleased at his new accomplice.

He is saying, "I think if we keep saying we wanted to defund it...we'll win."

Meaning,  We will keep saying it even though we never intended to defund it in the first place. We can pose as "conservatives" while still selling out the rubes who elected us. We can keep playing this game indefinitely! We'll line our pockets at our constituents' expense and retire with a healthy sum. We must turn the reigns of corruption over to a new generation at some point, but lets enjoy this while we can."

Now, Smile for the Camera!

 Shhhh... don't say anything. Just smile and wave, let them believe what they want to... moronic Tea Party fools.

I Stand Corrected... Rand Paul Shows His True Colors

In my last post I said we needed more holders of public office like Rand Paul and Mike Lee. I Omitted Ted Cruz because I am already convinced he is an M1A1 slickster and a fraud.

I have been watching Rand Paul since his election and I have waited and hoped. I have seen thus far a "moderate conservative", while hoping to eventually see a principled constitutionalist.

Rand Paul is now showing his true colors. He is telling the Texas Republican Party, in order to win elections, they must be more like the other side. This information comes from The Blaze and should hit you like a fire alarm.

Quote from the piece on theblaze.com, "The senator, who has expressed similar sentiments before, said party leaders in the state need to learn to adapt with the times and to be the party of inclusion."

and,

 “That means we evolve. It doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party,”

Translation: We don't have to give up what we believe, we just put it on the back burner and adopt the other side's principles. We can still cling to them, hopefully, in the backs of our minds, but we need to think and behave like the opposition and then we can win elections!

and,  “We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes — business class, working class.”

Translation, You Republicans... Uhhh, I mean WE republicans have been exclusive of other races and classes. We need to acknowledge our guilt and acquiesce to the program. If we are nice enough and play the game, eventually we will be allowed to drive the bus for a while.

and,

“We need to have people with ties and without ties, with tattoos and without tattoos — with earrings, without earrings,” he said. “We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.”

Translation: You stuffed shirts need to loosen up. Get with the times! Don't be a Hay-ter!

Now I ask you, have you heard any Constitutionalist or Liberty minded person demand that everyone wear the same uniform? Think in lockstep? Expose and anathematize those who look "different"? Are of another "class"?

and,

 “Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in securing the border first, doesn’t mean I don’t believe it’s important we have a secure country,” Paul said. “But it does mean we have to have a different attitude.”

Translation: Securing the border first, i.e., ...and then grant amnesty to twenty million foreigners who have invaded our country and abused our generosity. Of course we secure the border first. How about we secure the border, period? There is an invasion of our country happening right before our eyes and those in Rand Paul's position don't want to halt it. They want to facilitate it! Amnesty means letteing someone get away with his acknowledged crime without punishment. If those twenty million people who have invaded our country are allowed to stay, whether they work toward citizenship or not, they are granted amnesty. Rand Paul sees nothing wrong with this.

Ok, so we say we want to "secure the border first...", does that mean completely stopping the invasion? Or is there some other nebulous, nonspecific definition of "secure the border first"?

How about a virtual fence?

How about the use of drones?

How about check points fifty to a hundred miles inside the United States to harass citizens and non citizens alike?

Oh yeah, we already have those things.

This whole speech is telling republicans, to be more like Socialists and they can win elections. No one asks the question, "To what end?"

I am now convinced Rand Paul is a walking, talking false flag operation. Welcome to The Party, Rand. You're in good company.

Vote Republican! They're not as bad as the Other Guys!

Vote for the Mensheviks! They aren't like those evil Bolsheviks!

Join the Fabians! They aren't revolutionaries like those Leninists!

May God save our progeny. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost. Amen.

Rush Limbaugh Keeps Asking Why

Rush keeps asking why the Republicans are so timid. Why won't they grow a pair and act like they have our best interest in mind? Why won't they act like they want to oppose the leftist agenda? Why won't they act like they want to prevent amnesty for illegal aliens? Why won't they act like the want to repeal ObamaCare? Why won't they act like they want to roll back government regulations and lower our taxes? Why won't they act like they are a genuine opposition party?

I will tell you why. They are the Opposition Party. They want to be the Opposition Party. They want to be the Loyal Opposition. They want to play the game of sycophantic facilitation. They want to assist the other side in advancing THE agenda.

They want to keep you fooled. They want you to believe they are the only alternative to the leftist Democrats. They want you to believe they are "Conservative". They want you to believe they are working to resist the other side. They are none of the above.

If they were truly in opposition they would embrace they ideas of Rand Paul and Mike Lee. If they truly stood for your values, they would embrace the Tea Party. They oppose it tooth and nail.

I ask you to remember the election of Ronald Reagan. The mainstream Republican Party hated Reagan. They hated the Reagan/Goldwater form of "conservatism". They hated the Constitutional limits on their power just as they hate such an idea now. After Reagan took office, he was promptly shot. The assassination attempt was unsuccessful. He served eight years and got much of his agenda passed into law. The mainstream of the Republican Party still worked with the leftist Democrats at every opportunity. But Reagan came into office with what might be called a Tea Party coalition today. When George H.W. Bush took office, what happened to the Reagan legacy? It was promptly retired. It was dismantled and forgotten. You might recall that Bush called Reagan's economic policies "Voodoo Economics". He acted on that presumption when he took office.

Now I ask you, if the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan had been successful, who would have been president? George H.W. Bush, that is who. What did bush do to the Reagan agenda? He dismissed it. What would have happened if Mr. Bush had taken office seven and one half years earlier? The Reagan Revolution would have been forgotten and might have been a minor foot note in history. THE program would have continued apace.

Reagan wasn't supposed to happen. Just as the Tea Party eruption over bail outs, attempted granting of amnesty, and a stimulus bill which became the new baseline for future budgets, was not supposed to happen. He was a speed bump on the road to Socialism, or if you will, "progress".

One might also remember George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Meyers for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Ms. Meyers had no judicial experience. I say again, she had NONE. When the backlash grew from the right (which became the Tea Party) over her nomination and her utter lack of qualification for the office, Bush's half assed response was something along the lines of,

"Whaaaat? She's a nice person..." (insert Beavis and Butthead chuckle here).

They Republican Party is the Flip side of the same coin. They are not the opposition to the leftist Democrats, they are watching their backside. When the coin rolls, it rolls in one direction, to the left. Socialism. Government control. Central planning. Controlled distribution of goods and services. This is the future for these former United States of America. This will be the United Socialist State of North America by hook or by crook.

Why don't Republicans act like they want to win? Because they don't. If they did win the the kind of landslide a candidate like Reagan would cause today, they would be forced to act on the Tea Party's agenda. They would have to act like Constitutionalists, instead of the Socialists they truly are. They just don't want to do that...

Because they don't have a genuine disagreement with the other side. Onward to Sociali... uh, I mean Progress!

Armed Citizens in Alabama! Vigilantes! Oh My!

Mike, was that you and your crew? The Vigilantes I mean...

This interesting piece comes from The Blaze and illustrates the "...natural defense of a free State." In Pinson, Alabama to be exact.


It seems the neighbors, seeing one of the nearby houses being robbed, armed themselves (Oh my!) and went to do something about it. This is a good thing. In fact, this is the best of responses to an incident such as this. It is the Natural and Normal response.

From The Blaze, "

When residents of an Alabama town spotted three teens trying to break into a neighbors house in the middle of the day... They armed themselves and confronted them."  

I edited out the part where they "of course contacted the police." Do you see how naturally and logically it flows after I edited it? This is how it should be. The part about calling the police should have been an afterthought.

They did call the police first and for that reason it is a miracle they all survived the incident.

Criminals are known to shoot innocent citizens due to agitation and fear. Cops are known to shoot innocent citizens due to agitation and fear. Armed citizens are known to pose the biggest threat to criminals. Armed citizens are known to pose no threat to peace officers. Cops generally see armed criminals as a threat to their own safety. Cops generally see armed innocent citizens as a their own safety. Criminals see an armed innocent citizen and think, "Oh lohhdy, I mo git my ass shot!" Cops see an armed innocent citizen and think "Enemy! Threat! Dominate! Stomp! Kill!", of course being justified by the doctrine of "officer safety" and the mandate to go home at the end of their shift...regardless of the cost to those who pay their salary.

Which do you see as more likely to be a threat to your safety?

This?

Or this?

 (Images found on google)

 Score one for the Good Guys, the Good Neighbors and Free Citizens of Pinson, Alabama.

Some Thoughts on Ruck Marching.

The discussion originated on Westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com and I thought it would be good to post this here also.

Image found on google

Some thoughts on rucking:


The following applies to the ALICE series of ruck sacks. I use an ALICE Large.

There is a stitch in the quick-release on your shoulder straps, cut that stitch so that the quick-release actually works like it is supposed to.

Route your cinch straps back up over the top of the ruck frame BEFORE you send them through the keepers on the ruck flap and then into the buckles. The stitching which holds your ruck together will last longer.

Stow those cinch straps in the empty space behind the outside pockets of your ruck. Don't be a slacker/leg/pogue looking like he doesn't know what he is doing in the field.

Load your ruck with the weight as high and centered as you can possibly make it. A man's center of gravity is in his chest and shoulders. That is where the weight should be.

I have always tied off/taped off the back pad on the ruck. I tighten it as much as I can then tape off the straps against the frame. It will get in the way when you have to drop ruck quickly. It is also "stuff" that you shouldn't worry about. Simplify things.

Keep the top of the shoulder straps tightened as close to the frame as you can wear them comfortably. If those straps are long the ruck will ride further down your back. See comment above.

Tape off all remaining loose ends. Don't be a slacker/leg/pogue.

Always use a waterproof bag inside your rucksack. Double layer it if you have two. If not, try a compactor bag inside your G.I. waterproof bag.

This is important! When training, do not carry large loads or heavy weights. It is important to train for mobility first. Put in 35 pounds to start. Again, make sure your load is high and centered. Work on your speed. Then increase your load in 10 pound increments. A sandbag fits nicely inside the radio pouch against the frame.. When you can comfortably road march 4 to 4.5 miles per hour with moderate weight, then start adding poundage. If you can move like a cat in the woods and a speed demon on the trail, you can wear any weight required. Condition yourself first.

Don't go for long distances when training/conditioning. Do 6-8 miles a couple of times a week. Again, work on your speed. Stretch that stride. Do a 12 or 15 miler once a month or so. This will help condition the mind. An all night 24 miler will only wear you out and get you to thinking you really don't want to do this. It may be necessary at some point,  but not in the conditioning phase.

Remember, the mission dictates the load your carry. Actions on the objective will not require a 90 pound ruck, you'll ditch that before hand. When you do drop that heavy ruck and prepare for action, you'll feel like you're floating.

Another Report of Thugs in Action

This one comes from Pro Liberate by way of Battlefield USA and is illustrative of the degeneracy of our public officials.

The clencher:

"Of course,  the most significant fact in this case – namely, that Uhrig and his partner broke the law by invading Miller’s home and assaulting her in front of her family – was established beyond dispute at the October 2012 suppression hearing. From the instant he crossed the threshold of Miller’s home without a warrant or permission, Uhrig became an armed robber. In a genuinely civilized society, he would have been treated as such at the point of his crime – or, at least, subject to the appropriate criminal penalties after the fact." 

(image found on Google)

We put up with Thugs. Thugs who wear a Super Hero costume and bear a Magic Shield. They tell us, "I'm a Law Imposement Officer and I will fuck you up and get away with it! I'll beat the shit out of you then charge you with assault on a Police Officer! I'll invade your home and terrorize your family whenever it pleases me! You better just lay down and piss on yourself or I will FUCKING KILL YOU!"


As The Eagles sang, How long... How long...?

Thugs become Murderes, in Action...

I have seen this story from various sources over the last couple of days. I was not there. I do not know exactly what happened. I am reading that two cops tasered the psychotic, ninety pound, eighteen-year-old, had him held to the ground and a third cop shot him dead.

This is the dangerous psychotic criminal, wielding a screwdriver, who needed to be shot in front of his parents.

I was not there. I do not know everything that happened. I do know this, there are hundreds of videos like this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRsFp56FYKc


and this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUs_6yTcLW4

and this one...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku42PPzYEqs

I also know that the two cops who didn't shoot the psychotic young man, didn't lift a finger to arrest the cop who did. I do know that cops have less and less credibility with the citizens they "service".

The cop who killed the young man is now on paid administrative leave... pending the internal investigation and the ultimate exoneration. The Gang will protect its own. All involved officers went home at the end of their shifts.

Reject The Premise! You Owe Them Nothing!

The welfare class says, "I exist! Therefor you owe me money!

The Government tax agent says, "You exist! Therefor you owe me money!

Now, do you really?

"This is not a nation where people are left alone anymore..."

This piece is from a link on Western Rifle Shooters. It is an article by Daniel Greenfield posted on Canada Free Press

Here is the money quote,

"This is not a nation where people are left alone anymore. This is a nation where they are hounded from the moment they are born until the moment they die by the arms of a regulatory state run by men and women weaned on Cleaver, Alinsky, Fourier, Marx, Wells and countless others. This is a nation where, accordingly, being left alone is the greatest of luxuries."

It is worth a read. Go now!

Cowards! Shirkers! Sycophantic Bootlicking Slaves!

 (Image found on theblaze.com )

The image above is what I find so sickening.

THIS comes from theblaze.com and makes me want to vomit.

Supposedly free men are lining up at the police station to register their lawfully owned firearms and beg permission to keep their property. They are cowards because they refuse to stand manfully and say NO! They are shirkers because they have a responsibility to pass on their liberty to their progeny and they have refused. They are slaves because the beg permission from their superiors to exercise a Natural Right.

Shame on you Gun Owners of Connecticut! Shame on you! May your chains rest lightly upon you and may history forget that you once called yourselves our countrymen. On second thought I don't give half a goddamn how heavy your chains get. You begged for them!

Cowards!

A Public Servent Acting in His Capacty to Harass

You gotta be fucking kidding me! This State employed Thug decides to write a citation for the offense of washing a car on private property.

Link to cbs long island 

The Story can also be found on drudgereport.com

Go and see for yourself.

This cop thinks this a good idea. He thinks he doing the right thing! He does this because he WANTS to! At one point the home owner challenges the State employed Thug to go ahead and write the citation. The thug eventually leaves.

Good fuckin guys, huh? Best sons-a-bitches who ever shit between two boots, right? Those good fuckin guys who harass people for washing their car in their own driveway.

A Right To property? Who Owns You? Theft At The Point Of A Gun?

  Image found on Google

Who owns you? Does the State own you? Are you someone's property? Asked simply, are you a slave?

Who then owns you? Do you own yourself? Ask a devout socialist/communist this question. He will dodge it, but do not let him. Press hard! "Are you a Slave, or are you a free human being?"

If there is no property, there is no self ownership. However, if you do not own you it stands to reason that someone else does. Does the State own you? Does the State act as if it owns you? Are you a de-facto slave? Are you engaged in involuntary servitude? This then is the oxymoron which makes the whole argument for socialism collapse. If there is no property, and at the same time the State may use or dispose of you as seems expedient, then you are a slave and therefor, property.

If you own you, then that is the basis of the right to all property. It is the most elemental thing. Self ownership and the right to be free and self-determinant confirms the right to property. There is such a thing!

If one owns oneself, then one's wealth, one's labor, one's thoughts are one's property. One's wealth comes from one's effort and labor. One's labor comes from the plan of a rational mind, one's thoughts. One's thoughts come from one's own self. Self ownership equals the inherent right to property.

An exercise then in the practical application of Socialism, in microcosm:

I have two neighbors. One is Bob, who has a wife and three children. The other is Bill, who lives alone. Bob's children are hungry and need new shoes. I, feeling empathy for Bob and his family, decide "something" must be done! I walk over to Bill's house, knock on the door, and when he answers I say,

"Bill, Bob's kids are hungry and need new shoes! I care more than you do about Bob's children! Give me your fucking money!"

Bill looks at me and laughs, "I'm not giving you my money, get off my lawn..."

I then produce a gun and point it at Bill and repeat,

"Bob's kids are hungry! They need new shoes! I care more than you do! Gmme your fucking money now!"

Bill, under duress, reluctantly, reaches for his wallet and pays me. I look at him smugly and say,

"Good... I'll be back next week"

Bill, righteously, feels violated. Indeed he has been violated.

What do you call the action I have taken? It is theft. It is theft at the point of a gun. Do you think I care that I have just stolen a portion of Bill's life? Why should I? I got what I wanted.

If my actions are essentially theft, what would one call it if I hired an agent, a thug, to do the same thing, in my name and on my behalf? It is still theft! What if the thug I hired has a bright shiny new badge, a magic shield, and is a government employee? Does the nature of the act change?

Our Declaration of Independence says that Governments are instituted for the purpose of protecting our rights. Principle among these are the rights to one's life, one's liberty (freedom to move and act as one thinks), and one's property (the end result of one's thoughts translated into rational action, resulting in a product, i.e. food, clothing, a house, or an ounce of Gold)

Socialism/Communism are the negation of these rights. They are the philosophy of the thug and the gangster. Get this folks, Socialism is not a failed economic system. Its proponents do no pursue it because they are stupid and cannot see the lessons of history. They pursue the goal because they know what they dare not declare. Socialism, is a control mechanism. It is a mechanism of institutionalized theft. It works perfectly.

Now, what shall we do about it?

Has Digital Rape Become Standard Police Precedure?

(Image found of Google)

There are multiple sources on this story. Here are two which you can read at your leisure.

A New Mexico Woman was strip searched and then digitally raped both anally and vaginally, supposedly in a search for drugs. When no contraband was found, she was transported to a hospital in EL Paso and forced to defecate in front of witnesses, then subjected to a CT scan and an x-ray, and as if that wasn't enough, her anus was digitally raped again.

The people who did this to her will have qualified immunity from prosecution for the crimes. They will face no criminal charges. They will spend not one night in jail. They will probably receive, if they are investigated at all, paid administrative leave pending the ultimate exoneration.

In this case it was Customs and Border Protection personnel (don't you feel protected?). Those federal officers think digitally raping your wife, daughter or mother is the right thing to do. They did it willingly. They did it gladly. They did it with enthusiasm. They did it because they wanted to. They did it because they know they will get away with it.

Do you think for a moment these sociopathic, digitally-raping, citizen-abusing, shameless sons-of-bitches asked themselves if this was the objectively "right" thing to do?  No. They thought to themselves, "This is what we're going to do... because we can."

They don't give half a God-damn about your rights.

Do you still believe the MYTH that the "vast majority" of Law Imposement personnel are super-duper good guys, who want only to "do the right thing"? Do you still buy into the fantasy that there are just a few bad apples making headlines in the press? I do not. I disabused myself of that notion long ago.

For the record, I will not stand idly by and allow any man to abuse my wife, my daughter or my mother. I care not who his employer is. It does not matter that he wears a super hero costume and bears a magic shield.

Natural Law says I have a right to defend my life and that which is mine. Period.

Where I live, statute law says this, "A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor's imminent use of unlawful force."

 
Natural Law dictates my actions. I will prevent the abuse, including digital rape, of my self, my wife, my daughter or my mother. If anyone (and I mean ANYONE, it does not matter to me that the assailant wears a super hero costume and bears a magic shield) attempts such abuse, I will lawfully defend myself, my wife, my daughter and my mother. If I find out after the fact that such an assault has occurred, may God have mercy of the assailant. I will not.

Free Men! You Have No Obligation to Drink Poison!

(image found on Google)

A recent discussion over at Western Rifle Shooters got me motivated to spew some venom of my own.
The discussion revolved around the notion of a ConCon and whether or not it would be conducive to asserting our Constitutionally secured Liberty. Too often in these discussions we lament how we cannot come together to work on it. This is what I have to say and this is just to start.

We cannot find common ground enough to join forces, even for a brief time, in order to declare, assert and restore our liberty?

Gentlemen, this is too easy.

First declare and assert self ownership.

Second, reject all forms of paternalism. Free men do not apply for "benefits" from Daddy/Government. Reject the very notion of Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPS, SNAP (food stamps), etc... Any man who claims he wants his liberty but then clings to those ideas is lying to you and not worthy of your company. Link with like minded free men and go to work.

Third, reject every premise of Socialism. We DO NOT have an obligation to take care of the poor, the homeless, the downtrodden. Each of us has an obligation to help our neighbor if we are able. Who then is our neighbor? As Christ taught us, even a Samaritan(!!!) could be your neighbor, if he does something neighborly such as pulling you out of a ditch after you have been beaten and robbed. Samaritans were considered phoneys and pretenders Gospel times, because indeed they were. Even one of...(here insert your favorite despicable type) them!

We do, each of us, have an obligation to take care of ourselves and our families, and excepting our neighbor, no one else. Communities can be built ONLY by free men, each acting in his own rational self interest and interacting with others on that basis. Socialism appeals to genuine liberals because they are stupid. It appeals to control freaks because they are control freaks. A Socialist doesn't want to take care of his neighbors. He wants to point a Government gun at you and FORCE you to do it at his direction! Is that an economic system? It is if you consider Slavery to be good economics.

Once FreeFor has rejected the false premise and rejected those who have not, our work will be easy.

What then do we do for restoration? We live as free men. We refuse to feed the BEAST and we defend ourselves, and our neighbor, it attacked by it.

If taken to court, as each of us may be, assert common law and refuse to participate in the admiralty/commercial/negotiable instrument system. Yes, we may go to jail for contempt, tell the judge who sends you there he is contemptible. Each of us may go to prison, that is possible, but if we subscribe to the enemy's lexicon we have already lost!

I say again, when we subscribe to the enemy's lexicon we have conceded the argument. If we put a drop of cyanide into a five gallon bucket of clean water, do we have a bucket of water which is 99% pure? NO! We have a bucket of poisoned water. We are not obligated to drink it just because it is diluted!

I say, reject those who start from a false premise. They do so because it is comfortable. Link up with those he do not require, nor seek, security. The Animating Contest of Freedom cannot be waged in a straitjacket.

Thugs In Action... Again

Resistor in the Rockies has the story, but it has appeared at The Blaze dot com also.

These two Criminals in Uniform have done this at least twice. They anally raped two men on the suspicion of harbored drugs in their rectum. These two Thugs work in Deming, NM.

As was the case with the DPS Officers digitally raping women on Texas highways, how many more times did they get away with it?

How long have their co-workers, their brothers in arms, their Thin Blue Line fellow Gangsters allowed them to get away with it?

Let us not mice words here. This was Thuggery. This was Rape. These two miscreants think what they did was lawful and appropriate. Why do they harbor that mistaken notion?

Back Slaps and High Fives All Around...

Read this and realize what will be done to you.... or your Father... or your Brother.

Faced with a one hundred seven year old man, the only thing they can think to do is gas, flash-bangs, and gunfire.


 http://www.thv11.com/news/article/278849/2/107-year-old-Arkansas-man-dies-in-shootout-with-SWAT

Update, He was legally blind and nearly deaf.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/08/107-year-old-man-dies-in-shootout-with-swat-team/

I am constantly being told to remember, the men who do this are our "friends" and "neighbors". They have families. Their children go to school with our children. Their wives shop at the same grocery store where our wives shop.

More T.I.A. or Thugs in Action

If you want to know what Law Imposement has in store for you, read this piece from David Codrea just in case you missed it.

Then read this piece, from HuffPo, the link to which I got from from Battlefield USA also.

They are both worth a couple of minutes.

Do you still believe in Dudley Doright?

Ahh... The Parasite's Paradox

This piece comes from market-ticker.org and explains to the uninformed, or the misinformed, how basic macro-economics works. Thanks to WRSA for the link. The piece is concise and very worthy of a read.

The Parasite's Paradox is this, the Parasite wants desperately to feed off the host in quantities which would kill the host and thus deprive the Parasite of its food which would, logically, kill the parasite. The Parasite knows it must have a healthy host off of which it can suck in order to live, but by living off the host it will eventually destroy it's own food supply. It knows it must not be too burdensome, if it wants to continue to exist, but it just cannot help itself. It is after all, a Parasite.

Socialists, Marxists, Statists, Bullies, Thugs and Control Freaks of all stripes are such as these.

More Digital Rape in Texas. How Many Times Did They Get Away With It?

I said when I posted about this sort of thing last time, they are smugly self assured they can't be wrong because they have probably gotten away with it before.

Here is proof!

More digital searches of motorists in Texas have been exposed. That means a Texas DPS Officer is anally and vaginally fingering your daughter/wife/mother.

The sickening story can been seen at MyFoxAustin with an accompanying video. (Thanks to http://www.policemisconduct.net) The news piece says the officer doing the search has been fired and the officer observing and doing nothing about it has been suspended. There should be felony charges against them both. Whatcha wanna bet they were laughing and joking about it after the incident? How many officers in their unit knew about it? How many times has this happened and how long has it been SOP?

Let us speak clearly here. This is Rape. A female DPS officer in Texas digitally raped a citizen in Texas and another cop stood nearby while it was happening. If this doesn't make your blood boil, you are either dead or playing for the other team.

Just in case that wasn't enough for you, here is another link with a similar story, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/5-men-sue-city-of-milwaukee-police-department-4-officers-for-illegal-strip-searches/2013/07/11/dffeaf54-ea3a-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_story.html

I want to remind you all of this fact:

The cops involved here and in the previous incident, SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS!

They thought digitally raping a citizen was the RIGHT THING TO DO!

They are PROUD OF THEMSELVES!

 Folks, if Alex Jones is right and this is a prison planet, then this makes perfect sense.

May God have mercy on you if you attempt to do this to my wife, daughter or mother. I sure as fuck won't.

A Good Cop Speaks Up

I found the link over at Gun Free Zone. This is the money quote from the piece:

My message to my brethren is also simple: unless a person is materially interfering while videoing, simply leave them alone.  If you are worried about what the video will capture, the issue is with you and not the person taking the video.

And again he Speaks clearly:

What I mean by no carte blanche is that officers simply cannot demand identity from a person and then arrest that person for failure to comply.   Remember that any seizure of a person requires at minimum reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (see above link on police-citizen contacts), and using a show of authority to compel identification is a seizure.

Thank you Cheif Weems.

What Massad Ayoob, and the Rest of the Law Imposement Community, Doesn't Say

In his recent piece published at Backwoods Home, Massad Ayoob makes his case that the Law Imposement community really doesn't oppose the Citizens' right to keep (meaning hold, possess, maintain) and bear (meaning carry) arms.

He says a lot in his piece, but not what he should have said if he wanted to genuinely back up his claim.

What he said was, "...I was at the annual conference of the above-mentioned ILEETA, attended by more than 700 police trainers from around the nation and the world. I was one of many attending a panel discussion on Active Shooter Response when something interesting happened.... Partway through the discussion, a panel member looked down at a text message on his smart phone, and raised his hand to interrupt. He announced that he had just received a message that the Universal Background Check bill had failed to pass in the United States Senate. And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause."

What he should have said was,"...the Universal Background Check bill, which would not have exempted Law Imposement Officers, had failed to pass in the United States Senate. And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause." I cannot help but wonder, that if the bill would have specifically exempted that group of citizens, there would have been anything more than a yawn.

What he said was, "By contrast, the anti-gun groups were notable by their absence. No surprise; they had nothing to offer real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would see through them, anyway."

What he should have said was, "No surprise; they had already made their case to real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would agree with them, anyway."

What he said was, "Shouldn't the cops have responded with an anguished chorus of "Boo"? No. Because these were the real cops, the trainers of the next generation of real street cops, and they knew the reality.

Here is where I again ask the question: Where the fuck are they?  Where are all these "good guy" cops we keep hearing about? Why aren't they, individually and through their professional organizations, making the most noise of all? Hundreds of thousands of "Law Imposement Professionals" could rival the voice of the NRA, but they don't. There is eerie silence when it comes time for all those "good guys" in Law Imposement to stand up and support the rights of we mere mortal "civilians". There should be hundreds of cops speaking before State legislatures in every State, every time an anti-gun bill is being debated. There are rarely any at all.

There should be NO VIDEOS like this one, and this one, and this one, and this one... and on it goes. There are hundreds.

The average Cop would never do such a thing, right? Never! He supports every free man's RIGHT to possess and carry arms, right? Well, maybe, as long as a person is properly trained and licensed... Right?

How about this, Must I have a License to draw breath? I have a Natural right to breathe, correct? Need I ask a cops permission first? Must I demonstrate a "need" before I exercise the right? Will I be made to stop breathing every time a cop approaches and decides to feel bad because I am exercising my Natural Right without his permission?

What Mas said was, "A record 86,000-plus NRA members attended. Among the throngs inside the convention center were many law enforcement officers, some in uniform. They chatted pleasantly with the armed citizens and firearms industry people in the aisles."

What he didn't say was that in Texas it has been illegal to open carry a sidearm since the Reconstruction era. Each armed citizen those cops conversed with had a Texas CHL, a license, in his pocket. Each citizen had submitted to finger printing and mug shots and a State approved indoctrination in order to carry a Permission Slip around in his pocket, thus minimizing his chances of being harassed by all those "good guys" in the Law Imposement profession. Do Law Imposement professionals feel at ease in a room full of armed citizens, generally no, They don't like the idea at all, but at least they all had State Photo I.D. Permission Slips with them.

I have worked many gun shows were local cops and sheriff's deputies come in as patrons (free of charge usually). Every time I have attempted to engage them in conversation about comparative preferences in weaponry, the cops get anxious and flustered and seem to want to move on  right away. They don't like the idea that a mere civilian knows more about firearms and shooting than they do, and that the mere mortal civilian is likely more proficient than they are with their own personal weaponry.

What Mas said was, "The media and anti-gun politicians constantly tell the public that cops want more "gun control" and even gun bans."

What he didn't address was why they aren't the loudest people in each community opposing more "gun control". The truth is, they remain silent because their pay check is more important than their supposed principles. Their Boss's opinion of them is more valuable than the Natural, God given, Rights of the citizens they serve.

What Mas said was, "You'll hear the same from high profile police chiefs who, despite the usual rule that police officers can't take political positions while speaking as members of the law enforcement agency, will flank the President or some other politician who makes an anti-gun speech. Why does that happen?"

I will tell you why. It is because they are in this game for Control. Gun Control is People Control. It is Population Control. It is the perfect useful tool in the grand mechanism of control which is Stateism. The Chiefs of Police believe in, and use, each and every mechanism of control at their disposal. As with all bullies and control freaks, Control is its own reward.

What Mas said was, "Sheriffs are a different matter. The high sheriff of the county is an elected official, and "serves at the pleasure" of ... the voters. This is probably why you see relatively more sheriffs than police chiefs or commissioners standing up for gun owners' civil rights and refusing to be sock puppets for anti-gun politicians."

This is a true statement, This is why it is critical for people to know fully where their Sheriff stands in regard to Natural Rights. One must look beyond his public statements and see his actions. His actions will tell the tale. Sometimes a Sheriff will release a letter saying he will "never support the illegal seizure of Citizens' weapons ", but not that he would oppose such seizure under any circumstances.

What Mas said was, "The Police Benevolent Association representing New York State Police Troopers took public exception to the law." in reference to the New York SAFE Act. According to reporter Teri Weaver, "...The union representing New York State Police say they believe the state's stricter gun laws could put law enforcement officers at risk."

Not that they give half a Damn about the Natural Rights, nor the safety of the citizens they supposedly serve. Wouldn't that be the primary concern of all those "good guys" we keep hearing about?

Again according to Teri Weaver, ""In an email release on Monday, the New York State Troopers PBA said its 6,000-member group "holds widely shared concerns" about the NY Safe Act. Nonetheless, the union takes exception to some state lawmakers accusing the troopers of failing to enforce the law."

Why, hell yes they are enforcing the law! They will enforce this law against the citizens they supposedly serve, until they are told not to by those who pay them. People have already been prosecuted under it. They say the PBA "holds widely shared concerns"? How about contempt? How about deeply rooted and righteous anger? How about indignation? How about saying, "Hell no! I ain't doing it!"?

Again according to reporter Weaver, the PBA says, "We urge the citizens of New York state to remember that troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the state, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws."

How about this Boys and Girls in Law Imposement, if a statute passes the legislature and it obviously and blatantly violates the Natural Rights of the citizens you supposedly serve, and violates your Oath of Office, announce boldly and with vigor, that you will NOT enforce it! Disavow it!

Police Departments and Sheriff's Offices all over New York blatantly announced they would be violating the NY SAFE Act, while imposing the same law in the public. Originally, there was NO exception in the SAFE Act for Law Imposement Officers. Governor Cuomo recently signed laws which now exempt them. Can you say hypocrite? Can you say Liar? Can you say Oath Breaker? They are now above the law with which you must comply. But by golly, they support your rights, because they are such "good guys"!

What Mas said was, "A lot of the general public has missed the fact that many of these laws impact police."

No! Say it ain't so! You mean the police sometimes suffer the unintended consequences of the laws they are told to impose on the rest of humanity? I mean, shouldn't there be a blanket exception?

Again, Mas,  "A great many law enforcement agencies (Florida Highway Patrol comes to mind) can't afford to buy AR15s for every officer, so they authorize their armed personnel to buy their own and take them on duty after appropriate training and qualification. An "assault weapon ban" written to allow these guns to be purchased only by law enforcement agencies takes that option off the table, and police in that situation won't have access to patrol rifles with which to protect the public and themselves."

Don't worry, they can always get a grant from the Department of Homeland Security! Then they will be free to impose this kind of prohibition on the rest of humanity!

But wait! Mas continues, " If the law is written to exempt currently sworn individual police officers, that means that as soon as the officer retires and gives up his sworn authority, he's either a criminal if he keeps it, or has to give his personal property over to the police department."

Mas, you mean to tell me, that when a cop retires he is no longer a Super Citizen, but a mere mortal civilian again? And he has to suffer under the same restrictions and limitations of his Natural Rights that the rest of humanity does? This just isn't fair! You can't go around treating superior beings like mere mortals!

Mas continues, "In 2004, then-President George W. Bush signed into law HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. As LEOSA stands now, any sworn (or honorably retired and currently handgun-qualified) police officer can carry a personal handgun nationwide when "on their own time." "

You mean it created a Federally recognized class of Super Citizens who have privileges the rest of humanity doesn't. That's kinda cool IF you happen to have a Magic Shield in your pocket!

And then, "However, they are required to conform to the laws that would govern a private citizen licensed to carry in the given jurisdiction."

No! Say it ain't so!

Then, "This means that if Coloradans can't have more than a 15-round magazine ... if Californians can't have more than 10-rounders ... and if New Yorkers with permits are allowed no more than seven cartridges in a magazine ... then that applies to visiting out-of-state cops as well.""

It just can't be!Super Citizens should be allowed to be armed in any way they please when traveling about the country, unlike mere mortal civilians.

Mas finishes with, "The bottom line is, when you hear someone say "The police want to ban these guns/magazines/transfers between law-abiding private citizens" ... don't believe it."

Correction, believe it until you hear them shouting from the rooftops, announcing hey will not enforce such Un-Constitutional laws on their neighbors.Until you see and hear that, don't delude yourself.

"Anyone who actually works with the cops on the street knows that the great majority of them want to enforce existing laws on genuine criminals, not criminalize the law-abiding citizens they've sworn an oath to protect and serve."

If that was true, there would be no such thing as this and this and this and this and this and this.

If the "good guys" were the vast majority, the above would be as rare as hens teeth. They are not.

Texas DPS Officers Didn't Get Away With It... Digitally Raping Two Citizens.

You might remember,  a few months back, two women in Texas allege that a Texas DPS officer digitally raped them during a traffic stop. There is video of the whole incident. To their credit and my dismay, the women being assaulted were amazingly calm and compliant. Perhaps it is because they wanted to live through the rest of the night after the rape was over.

A local CBS station has the video posted here. It is disgusting to watch. One wonders where the husbands and fathers are in Texas.

It started with a traffic stop. The reason for the stop? Littering. Yes littering. Two women were subjected to digital rape by a police officer for littering.

Early on, the first DPS officer decided he was going to search the women. Probable Cause for a search? It doesn't matter. He can always make something up on the spot. For example, "I thought I detected the smell of Marijuana..." or "Furtive movement..." hell take your pick. It doesn't matter the excuse, the officer knows he can get away with it.

He begins trying to bully her as soon as he orders her out of the car. He takes the driver off camera where his body language would not speak to anyone watching the video later, but he could be as intimidating as he wanted to be while using a level tone of voice. He then lies to the second officer who arrives to perform the search, saying, "They're both acting a little weird..." This lends justification to the search in the mind of the second officer. After all, a member of the Gang wouldn't lie to a fellow ( or in this case, sister) member, would he? The female DPS officer then proceeds to digitally rape both motorists.

The driver finally tells the thugs that she has been digitally raped and the officer responds with a simple, "You can go."

The end result was the Texas DPS payed out a settlement of  $185,000.00 to the victims.The officer performing the digital rape of the victim, Kelly Helleson has been charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of official oppression. You can read that story here. 

It is not clear if any charges will be brought against the other officer, David Farrell, though he has been suspended.


The attorney representing the victims is quoted, by the local CBS news station, as saying, “It will deter any future misconduct by any police officer or trooper in the future, for sure. That’s part of why they brought this lawsuit,” he said. “This will probably never happen again because of this lawsuit and the attention this has gotten.”

I don't believe this will never happen again.  They did  it this way this time, because they were confident they would get away with it. They have probably done this before. They were rather nonchalant aboutt he whole thing.

The worst thing about this to me is the fact that Texas DPS Troopers digitally raped and sexually assaulted two women on the highway, who they had stopped for the crime of littering, and thought nothing of it. They truly believed they could casually commit sexual assault on two citizens. They didn't see it as a crime. They saw it as doing the RIGHT THING.

Right now, in Texas, there is a DPS officer saying, "Oh well, I'm glad that didn't happen in my department... Oh wait, DPS is my department... I mean, uhhh, I'm glad those two weren't on my squad... Oh wait, they were on my squad... I mean, uhhhmmm, I'm glad I wasn't forced to do that due to some Civilian littering..."

This is where we are in the former US of A. 

I keep hearing how cops must be on their guard against me, for they never know when I might just decide to kill them on a routine traffic stop. It makes me think, if I am stopped for a minor traffic infraction, a cop may just decide to rape me, and if I resist that rape he may very well kill me.

Bullies and Thugs in Official State Costume, are you proud of yourselves? This is your profession. These are your brethren. This did happen. Those were the same Oath Keeping good guys who "would never do such a thing".

Whatcha gonna do about it? Nothing? Thought so.

A FedGoon explains Use of Force

This piece linked from Sipsey Street Irregulars  (thanks Mike!) stirred up quite a hornet's nest of replies. Most of them are what I expected. Liberty minded people, citizens of this Republic, are at the end of their rope with being stomped on and treated like subjects.

My response to "Bob", who authored the piece was as follows (this applies to you State, County, and City boys also):

"Bob" has just outlined the nature and intent of State Employed Goons. One might sum it up like this:

"You will submit to me, because I am your Master and I may kill you if I please."

Isn't that about right?

Quote "And if they violate your rights, you can take legal action against them and their agency."

That is if you are not deceased because the FedGoon decided that he FELT LIKE you assaulted him and decided to "escalate".

US v. Bad Elk is correct. It is lawful and within the natural right of a free man, and the law is very clear on this, to resist arrest or any other action of a State Employed Goon if, before anything else happens, the Goon uses more force than is necessary.

Why don't you just submit and comply with your ass whipping and your broken bones? You can always go to court and beg for redress... right?

Not if you're dead you can't.

Bob, your 5%, 3% and 1%, while noteworthy, as nowhere near the truth.

If the vast majority of FedGoons were such good men, men of honor, men or sterling character, then Waco would never have happened.

If more than half of FedGoons were such stand up good guys, the truth would have been told by whistle blowers and dissenters who had resigned in disgust as the fictional narrative was being told on CNN and their fellow FedGoons were stomping around on the hot ashes of what had, moments earlier, been very much alive men, women and children.

People seek out positions of power over other people, not because they are benevolent wise men, but because they are arrogant power mongering control freaks who cannot not exist on a level playing field.

Why don't you go back to the locker room , or your office and stroke each others' egos and tell each other what super-duper good guys you are. Brag to each other how you clobbered that "perp" who refused to roll over and piss on himself in fear of your imminent awesomeness  Sell it to your own kind, Bob. I ain't buying your snake oil today. I lost my illusion too many years ago.
 
State Employed Goons, you want to know the nature of the problem? Look in the God Damned mirror.

Never mind, you don't want to know.