Attn: Rabid cop haters whose blood dancing celebratory comments on the NYPD killings are being routinely deleted by me.
Here is the face of your "instrument of justice": The Many Atlanta Mugshots of NYPD Cop Killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley.
Brinsley bought the gun he used to shoot his ex-girlfriend in Baltimore and the two officers here in Atlanta. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is currently questioning the pawn shop in the Atlanta metro region that sold Brinsley the gun. . . Brinsley had active warrants out of Cobb County . . . for probation violation related to theft, firearm possession and criminal property damage charges. Brinsley was thrown into the Fulton County Jail nine times between 2004 and 2010. The offenses include simple battery, disorderly conduct, theft by shoplifting, criminal trespass, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a knife during the commission of a felony, possession of marijuana, simple battery, and terroristic threats.
NOTE: All of the "kill all the pigs" comments are being deleted by me before they can be associated with this blog. I assure you that if that is what you truly believe and advocate you have not internalized the principles of the Three Percent and you should go find another hobby. Those of you who are merely federal trolls seeking to discredit the Three Percent via such messages ought to hang it up too. I instituted moderated comments early on because I was tired of neo-Nazis trying to hijack the blog. When I compare their collectivist hatred to those of a few recent commenters, there is little functional difference.
I love this! The political and bureaucratic infrastructure does every thing they can to place the people at odds with their governments, over any issue you care to name. Selling un-taxed cigarettes, and the related un-intended homicide, comes to mind here as I'm sure it did to the cop killer in NYC.
Will they then talk about these issues from a constitutional perspective, with the intent of undoing the ultimate causes for these incidents? HELL NO! There's too much money and power in it to stop now. What they want is an expansion of the current situation, as long as they can get everyone to play their parts, their power will increase and the money will keep rolling in, and that's all that matters to them.
Imagine what this is going to look like when someone screws up and does something really stupid and the people of this country decide that they have had enough.
I'm with law enforcement on this latest left wing temper tantrum. The leftists in this country have no shame. Where are the lightning bolts?
And I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers, but you know the old saying, "you get the government you voted for, (Deblasio), and deserve."
Random attacks against the lowest links in the chain will only lead to more brutality and an even worse 'us vs. them' mentality on the part of the police.
Hang in there, Mike. Seems like just about everyone is having to play Whack A Mole with the trolls these days. The noise level is increasing quite rapidly; so much so that one wonders what is being deliberately drowned out.
You won't let anyone comment on anything you don't agree with. You never have. You are a coward and a self promoting phony , who's only interest is your own overinflated ego. You long ago lost credibility with most of us because your sense of liberty is no better than the NSA's, so why worry about the comments of trolls? Because you are so drug addled and self deluded as to think your blog is somehow influencing the conversation? Nobody cares how many "rally's" you crash in your lust for self promotion. Your refusal to allow any voice but yours, Brands you as the same brand of statist you so loudly decry. No matter how many papers brand you a "leader". Only the left still cares.
The open hatred of the police by the Obama voters is only another result of electing an amatuer to be the leader of the "free" world. Instead of appealing to the better angels of our nature, he sows division and envy as befits his status of The Great Divider.
On one hand I think its juvenile and stupid to embrace that whole "kill the pigs" mentality. But I also find the level of straight up cop worship among people in pro-2A groups and what I see as excuse making for police misconduct and an authoritarian mentality and sense of entitlement among law enforcement. Mr V, you yourself on this blog have reported on one incident of a CT cop saying how he would just LOVE to be the one to kick down our doors and take our guns. you can just google and a ton of statements like that will show up. and on one 2A group on facebook, when I made the statement that just like the hip hop thug culture in entertainment influences bad behavior among certain segments of the population, there is also a cop thug culture in entertainment that could very possibly have an influence on some of these cops to try to live out their dirty harry fantasies. Like you said Mr V, you don't have to choose between "kill the pigs" and "the cops are always right"...as a three percenter I will NOT condone killing two men in cold blood while they are sitting in a car, cops or not, but on the other hand, I realize, and think all my brother and sister three percenters should realize, that there is no shortage of people in law enforcement who would give us a choice between either becoming cop killers or just getting into the cattle cars...and we shouldn't forget that
First, people are already starting to show that this "double cop killing" is another false flag event, so I personally will hold off on an opinion about that action until there are some facts shown to be true.
So why create this false flag event, if it is one? The first reason that comes to mind is to justify receiving all the military arms, vehicles, etc.
Many people are upset about "law enforcement" using military armament (the arms and equipment with which a military unit or military apparatus is supplied) being used on US soil against American citizens and demanding no more to be supplied to any law enforcement agency.
This "act" (if it is) along with the "drill" being done consecutively is suggestive that it is being used to lie (LEA's have the POLICY of lying) to make sure they receive those military "goods" that constitutionally is denied to them, foreign terrorists, foreign nations and lawfully belongs to the *Militia of each state.
*US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
No one should be surprised at that though, since the US Constitution refuses to allow those who serve within our governments to create LEAs - fed or state; but they were/ARE required to use the Militia of each state when needed to:
- Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,
- Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
- Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
- “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state's Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.
But when they created the LEA's and started "dismantling" the Militias (unlawfully) those who took the Oaths as LEA's took over our duty as the Militias of the several states (list above) and the ONLY lawful authority they have is taking and keeping that Oath.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”
(continued) Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
All modern federal and state law enforcement agencies violates our constitutional republic's most firmly held conceptions of criminal justice which was written into the Constitution of the United States of America. Governmental professional police were unknown to the United States until close to a half-century AFTER the Constitution's ratification. Law enforcement under our legitimate government was a duty of every citizen, not the duties of professional governmental law enforcement which is the direct opposite of a limited government. It was set up this way to protect the peoples liberty and natural rights, and to hold those who serve within the governments accountable to the people by the people. There is a reason that the Preamble to the US Constitution starts with: “We, the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
Professional police as we know them today originated in American cities during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, when municipal governments drafted citizens to maintain order. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, police forces took on the role of crime-fighting. The goal of maintaining public order became secondary to chasing lawbreakers. The police cultivated a perception that they were public heroes who "fought crime" in the general, rather than individual sense.
This "new" role followed the law enforcement model developed in England. Our country had cut its ties with England to develop our own form of government with LESS governmental involvement in the affairs of the people. The "new" law enforcement was incorporating MORE government into the affairs of the people against the US Constitution as is done in England.
The 1920s saw the rise of law enforcements new concepts developed and spread by J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI came to to be a perfect example of "police". They represented how to expand the police profession in its sleuth and intelligence-gathering role.
This very new view of police as" soldiers combating against crime"quickly became very popular law enforcement agencies of both the feds and the states. The FBI assisted local police to develop integrated repositories of fingerprint, criminal, and fraudulent check records. The FBI took over the gathering of crime statistics (which used to be gathered by private associations). Then the idea of governmental professional law enforcement as a "thin blue line," that "serves and protects" civilized society from lawlessness was pushed to change the way individuals saw their own duty as the Militia versus a professional governmental law enforcement.
(continued, sorry) The treatment of law enforcement in the courts shows that the law itself of crime control has hugely changed. Under the common law, there was no difference whatsoever between the privileges, immunities, and powers of law enforcement and those of private citizens. Professional governmental law enforcement were literally and figuratively clothed in the same garments as everyone else and faced the same liabilities — civil and criminal — as everyone else under identical circumstances.
When the USA started delegating their constitutionally required law enforcement duties to the professional governmental law enforcement, the laws were then relaxed to allow police to execute warrantless felony arrests upon information received from 3rd parties. Since the information received could not be confirmed, the Professional governmental law enforcement could no longer be required to be "right" all of the time, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was lost.
This has had the effect of depriving Americans of the certainty of guilt when warrantless arrests are committed against the populace. Plus judges now consider only if there was "reasonable grounds" to suspect a person, rather than "actual guilt" in committing a crime by those doing the (illegal here) warrantless and no knocks on peoples homes. This, combined with greater deference to the "state" in most law enforcement matters has reversed and gone against the supreme law of our land that they all are sworn to support and defend. It has reversed the original intent and purpose of American law enforcement that the state act against stern limitations and at its own peril, Americans now have fewer assurances that they are free from unreasonable arrests, and no way to recover the damages caused from false arrests under the "color of law" being perpetuated on the people.
This growing power differential goes against the principles of equal citizenship that is the bedrock of this nation. The great principle of the American Revolution was, after all, the doctrine of limited government. Advocates of the Bill of Rights saw the chief danger of government as the inherently aristocratic and disparate power of government authority, so wrote in immunities (natural rights) of the people from those in government overreaching themselves against the people. Constitutions - state and federal - specify the principle that all men are "equally free" and that all government is derived from the people.
(continued again) The modern disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen shows up most in the modern law of "resisting arrest". Any US citizen was privileged to resist arrest if probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed as individual liberty is the bedrock of our constitutional republic. It wasn't that long ago that the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and the owners had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such an unlawful arrest.
By the 1980s many states had eliminated the common law right of resistance for the people in order to make it easier for professional governmental law enforcement to do the work of the state, plus criminalized the resisting of arrest or anything else by the general populace of any "officer" acting in his official capacity. Then they eliminated the requirement that an arresting officer present his warrant at the scene, PLUS drastically decreased the number and types of arrests for which a warrant is required. Basically destroying the basis of our legitimate government, and the level of protection given to us by, and put into place by the Framers into the US Constitution and state Constitutions.
The right to resist unlawful arrest IS a constitutional one. It stems from the right of every person to his bodily integrity and liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all natural rights. Substantive due process principles require that the government interfere with such a right ONLY to further a compelling state interest — and the power to arrest the citizenry unlawfully can hardly be characterized as a compelling state interest. The advent of governmental professional policing has endangered important rights, lives, and property of the American people. This "changing balance of power" between police and private citizens now revels itself by the unlawful power of modern police to easily use violence against the population, and to use unlawful arrest techniques with no consequences.
So who is to blame for this? "We the people" are, as we allowed those who serve within our governments to dismantle the Militias, we do not hold those who "represent" us at any level accountable, and we let them teach our children unAmerican values.
Cal is right. It is OUR FAULT!
The best defense of rights is exercise of them. That's what I WILL NOT COMPLY is all about.
While it is a "in your face" moment for state gubmint, the ripples of this drawing the trolls goes beyond that. It EXPOSES the NRA and SAF for the frauds they are. See, when push comes to shove - they CHOSE to stand with government -----against the Citizenry------ for all to see.
Gubmint, the uniparty, and the money grubbing "rights groups" all showed true colors and they ALL want people talking about ANYTHING besides that reality.
Send in the trolls to set the conversations parameters.
Mike, please stop falling for this and handing the bastards their trophy links. Don't make them posts of their own - rather, post one of the many in a thread like this one and give it a laugh response, a mocking using your well earned command of the english language.
Then bring it right back to the topic at hand.
We cannot expect any entity to defend our right to defend ourselves FOR US. We must accept that responsibility OURSELVES. The I WILL NOT COMPLY message is salient and sacrosanct, and if the NRA and SAF don't like what it exposes, then they have some soul searching to do. Just don't be taken off message by trolls that may well be "friends" and "on your side" so long as you carry water for the weenie wagon and its sidekick (by focusing on trolls rather than continuing your BEAUTIFUL calling out posts).
I'm not saying to feed the trolls. But I am saying ran their own garbage right down their throats, plenty to burst their bowels.
Totally against what is going on and agree its not 3%er material what these cop killing scum are doing, but all I can think of is they wanted the civil war, so why are they acting all scared and surprised now that it seems to be starting?. I think now there is some buyers remorse, and the law of unintended consequences is starting to catch up. Again, not justifying any of this, but cops may think twice now before beating a homeless person to death while the poor guy is screaming and sobbing to stop over several minutes.
I contend that World War I would have eneded in a day if the elitists that waged it and concotted it spent one day in the trenches wondering if a machine gun bullet, enflamed fuel, gas canister, or artillerly shell, or bayonet was comming over the trench... Kind of off subject, but again, why are the cops acting surprised at what is being concotted by those who sit in ivory palaces with nothing to lose?
For crying out loud Cal, do you REALLY expect anyone to read that manifesto of craziness?
Anarchists, skinheads, black and white racists, our current leaders-communists, etc. & et al., want nothing but continued crises. Disorder and anti government is of the devil.
I know no mans heart but I can surmise peoples' intentions from the fruit of their works. They don't, not one of them, seem to have God in their heart.
@ Cal- TL/DR
I read it and enjoyed it. Thanks Cal. Could some explain to me how these cop killings (executions) differ from the "100 Heads Insurance" which is promoted here?
Cal ... Could you send me that text as one file please?
Great essay! I'd like to forward it to a few friends/family.
There is definently a problem with police behavior in the past few years.
However they are also a potential 5th column just waiting to hand over the keys to full-auto assault rifles, battle vehicles and explosives when the government drops the civility act and goes full stalinist. A lot of them do have an "us versus them" attitude, but the oathkeepers (even if there are only a few) left should be won over.
Post a Comment