ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, November 28, 2014

Thieves with badges

The U.S. police are not longer entitled to absolutely any respect or presumption of innocence anymore. They are, quite literally, trained highwaymen:
The stop of the gamblers in Iowa on April 15, 2013, illustrates some of the highway interdiction methods in use nationwide. Earlier that morning, an officer in Illinois alerted an Iowa trooper to a suspicious red car with Nevada license plates driving west, court records show. When the Altima appeared in Iowa, Trooper Simmons followed it for several miles before pulling it over. He told the motorists that they had been stopped for failing to signal when they passed a black SUV.

Simmons said he was issuing a warning for the failure to signal. After handing over the paperwork, he said the stop was over. Then he asked the driver, Newmerzhycky, if he had “time for just a couple quick questions.”

Police who specialize in highway interdiction use casual conversations to avoid triggering legal questions about the length of stops. If the conversations are consensual, courts consider the added delay to be legal.

Highway police are trained to use the chats as an opportunity to take stock of alleged “indicators” of criminal activity, including nervous speech patterns, a pulsing carotid artery and inconsistencies in stories. They are also trained to seek permission for warrantless searches.
Notice that the video proved that Trooper Simmons was lying when he told them why he pulled the two gamblers over. They were correct to doubt his veracity and lie to him in return. Never answer a policeman's questions. Always ask him if you are arrested, and if not, if you are free to go. If you can, video every interaction with them. They are not the good guys. They are, at best, thieves who prey upon the public.

Labels:

140 Comments:

Anonymous Sarcophilus November 28, 2014 9:11 AM  

It is "Am I being Detained?" in what is known as a "Terry Stop". If the answer is no, then "Am I free to go?". Just keep repeating until arrested or let go.

Copblock.org has many videos, as does pinac (photography is not a crime), both advocate recording everything.

Meanwhile, in Nevada, they have ways to do warrantless searched, to get warrants.

OpenID spastic0plastic November 28, 2014 9:23 AM  

Don't answer, and they can just shoot you in the face and say that you were about to hit them with the car. Then the money is split fewer ways

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 9:23 AM  

I am very leary of posts such as this. "at best highwaymen"?

I have come to realize that "Americanism" is anarchism. The hatred of authority, the prejudice against authority is in a sense all Protestantism.

In other words, Rebellion. It is a culture of rebellion. Can one build a society on a culture of rebellion? On anarchism?

It in most cases is not the policeman's fault, for the city council calls in the Police Chief and asks for more revenue. So the police chief tells his officers to write tickets.

In this case, the Left/liberal/Marxist approach of the drug culture has forced police itself to up the anty. It is a feedback loop, a circularity. As more and more Leftists/Liberals teach anarchy, rebellion and countercultural behavior, thus creating criminals, the police must also descend into polished techniques.

It is Hegel's dialectic. You tell people to hate authority and hate police, then the police need to sneak around the law to get the criminals.

See, there is no virtue anywhere. It is all the lack of virtue on everybody's part. The lack of the training in virtue harms everybody.

Blogger RC November 28, 2014 9:30 AM  

Yes, this is simply criminal when those sworn to uphold the law have become the bandits, all out in the open, under the color of law. The Reese family may be one of the better examples, operating a gun store in NM, being set up by the FBI, and having all of their assets stripped by an army of goons so they were dependent upon the kindness of others even to mount a defense. Improper methods were used throughout including compromised witnesses, though, surprisingly, I do think they won over the federal judge in the matter in the end, but he was overruled by the appeals court en banc.

Their story could be made into a book, millionaire entrepreneurs now penniless, working as help pack moving trucks, while their life's work including their own home will be divided up amongst the government criminals. That last fight is due the summer of 2015 and they will lose. Who knows, after what they've been through, they may just capitulate. If you want to see how it unfolded, the website www.lunatpp.org did a thorough job of documenting the entire sordid affair. The press was all but silent.

Blogger RC November 28, 2014 9:37 AM  

Wheeler, I was raised in a family led by a state patrolman, taught that the police were all good, except for a few bad apples, probably in Chicago. I took it all in hook, line, and sinker. Thirty years later, I know the truth and even my now-retired father is having a hard time explaining it all away, living in a world full of near-daily dissonance. The authority is for those on the right side of the thin blue line and those participating or allowing the beast to grow deserve our full contempt. It's out in the open now.

Anonymous Skillet November 28, 2014 9:39 AM  

I was told a story a few years back about an old man and friend who drove from Dothan AL to mid-Florida so they could buy a dump truck. The old man was one of those old school guys who never trusted banks so he had about 45k in cash to buy the truck. Somewhere in FL they went under a bridge and standing on top was a FL state trooper with a strange looking radar gun. It had a rather large horn on it and he was pointing it at the road below. Pretty soon they were pulled over, drug dogs came, and they chatted them up for a while. The dogs didn't hit on anything and they were satisfied with their story so they let them go on. They pulled off at a rest area down the road and it turns out so did the cops. The old man's friend was coming out of the bathroom and overheard one of the cops saying to another, "that old man had $47,500 in cash in that truck!" That was the exact amount of cash they had brought with them! The only way they could have known that was some sort of detection device. We figure that weird looking radar gun was in fact some sort of currency counting device that transponds off the metal strip in our greenbacks. Moral is, if you travel with a bunch of cash, you better shield it well, like maybe in a metal ammo can. The Man has tricks up his dirty sleeves that we don't even know about. Land of the free!

Blogger Chris Mallory November 28, 2014 9:42 AM  

"The hatred of authority, the prejudice against authority is in a sense all Protestantism. "

I have no problem with authority. But I am a child of the King of Kings, the only authority above me is Almighty God. The Temple Veil was torn, the only priest we have or need is the Lord Jesus Christ, not some pedophile in a black suit and white collar.

Yes Mr. Wheeler, it is the policeman's fault. He is the one carrying out the orders. A man of honor would quit. A man of honor would tell the police chief and city council to go urinate up a rope. We hanged quite a few German and Japanese boys for "following orders". I don't see why the thugs in blue should get a pass.

Blogger Chris Mallory November 28, 2014 9:45 AM  

"Wheeler, I was raised in a family led by a state patrolman"

I had some state troopers in my family as well. I remember the stories about the firearms that never made it into evidence. I remember the garages stacked full off booze, in a dry county, that they had taken from people. I remember the tales of "beating the sxxx" out of people for "disrespecting the badge". There are no good cops, there have never been any good cops.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 9:49 AM  

Wheeler... there is a very big difference from those who have a problem with all authority... and those who have a problem with illegitimate authority.

For example... you yourself would have a problem if I were issue several orders to you. You would rebuke as one who has no authority over you.

And if I were to use your reasoning here, I could then claim that you simply had a problem with authority.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 9:54 AM  

"It in most cases is not the policeman's fault, for the city council calls in the Police Chief and asks for more revenue. So the police chief tells his officers to write tickets. "

A wise man once said no just society benefits off of criminal prosecution.

We've long forgotten that.

Anonymous The Shyster November 28, 2014 9:56 AM  

The police are never there just for a chit-chat. As long as you realize the whole exchange is scripted right to the edge of legality you can protect yourself.

First, if you are ever stopped for burned out license plate light or failure to signal for a turn, realize that you have been stopped for matching a profile.


This is a good text summary. This is an excellent video that expands on the summary.

Anonymous Godfrey November 28, 2014 10:00 AM  

Christ established a church, he didn't write a book. However The Church did canonize selected writings later on.

But back to the topic... as was written earlier, always refuse a search until arrest or release.

Anonymous dh November 28, 2014 10:05 AM  

One great way to really screw with the police is to always vote not guilty when you are on a jury. My only two times on a jury, the first was for a stupid minor offense, and I hung the jury. The prosecutor was visibly shaking and red faced demanding that the judge bounce me from the jury, but I didn't budge. The second time myself and another like minded gent were able to push through straight not guilty on all counts.

Anonymous Godfrey November 28, 2014 10:08 AM  

Wheeler, you're over thinking this. It's not about an issue with authority. It's simply about not wanting to be robbed. I'm a Roman Catholic and I'd be just as angry about being pulled over and robbed as a Protestant.

Anonymous Stickwick November 28, 2014 10:08 AM  

OT: Early this AM, a gunman in Austin, TX shot up the APD headquarters, Mexican consulate, and federal courthouse. Interesting choice of targets.

Blogger Iowahine November 28, 2014 10:46 AM  

re: this is past, but for future reference . . .

Adult son stopped by city police ostensibly for making illegal u-turn; officer then asked if he would submit to breathalyzer (he says he most likely did reek of alcohol). He consented and blew above legal limit. Officer called station, then decided - supposedly because it was a busy night at the station - to write him up for reckless driving. Paid a lawyer and a fine, points on record.

In retrospect and for future reference - should he have consented to the breathalyzer, and what would have happened had he not? This happened in Virginia.

Thanks.

Anonymous DavidK November 28, 2014 10:48 AM  

The laws vary by state but in California they state that to refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test will result in revocation of your drivers license.

Blogger richard w comerford November 28, 2014 10:49 AM  

Re: The Need for Police

IIRC correctly in the Shire there was a tiny Corps of cops, Sheriffs I think, who wore a feather in their hats as a mark of office. Their principal duties were returning stray animals and "beating the bounds" - a sort of boarder control. (President Obama would not be pleased.)

However the Shire was not plagued with, among other things, divorce, abortion, pornography, glorified sodomy and the like.

We live in a Fallen World, and IMO, in particularly evil times. We need some sort of police whether it be volunteers with feathers in their caps or the Justice League.

As every profession in our society has been badly corrupted we should also expect corruption among the police as the norm. Also we should expect to find heroic souls among the police ranks who perform their duty honorably.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus November 28, 2014 10:49 AM  

I have long suspect that Wheler is a fool:

"I have come to realize that "Americanism" is anarchism. The hatred of authority, the prejudice against authority is in a sense all Protestantism.

In other words, Rebellion. It is a culture of rebellion."

I no longer suspect.

Anonymous Shibes Meadow November 28, 2014 10:50 AM  

Mr. Mallory: Meaning no offense, but you are a liberal. "[T]he only authority above me is Almighty God" = might well be the motto of atomist, individualist Liberalism. Remember, it is the Liberal who holds Liberté, along with Egalité and Fraternité, to be the greatest good. Sorry.

The Traditionalist position is, by contrast, hierarchical. A traditionalist does not hold with the Liberal axiom that power is derived from the consent of the governed, a farcical notion that is obviously untrue to anyone with eyes in his head. Traditionalist men respect Earthly authority as established by God, as specified in both the Fourth Commandment (by the Augustinian reckoning) and in the thirteenth chapter of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans. As servants of Christ, we loyally render unto Caesar his due just as we render unto God what is God's due, even when Caesar falls short of the mark. To do otherwise is to court chaos, and Traditionalists stand against chaos and in favor of the natural order.

It is only when Caesar oversteps his bounds and demands of us what is due God that we need no longer recognize his authority. In such a situation, however, we are to continue to respect legitimate authority even as we defy it; rebellion is the modus operandi of the Enemy. In such a case, as in so many others, the example of Saint Thomas More is the standard we seek.

Anonymous VD November 28, 2014 10:57 AM  

It in most cases is not the policeman's fault, for the city council calls in the Police Chief and asks for more revenue. So the police chief tells his officers to write tickets.

It is irrelevant. The policeman is as culpable as he would be if the police chief ordered him to shoot black children in the head. The USA is the very last place on Earth that any government agent can claim to be innocent because he was only following orders.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 11:06 AM  

Chris Mallory writes:

"I have no problem with authority. But I am a child of the King of Kings, the only authority above me is Almighty God. The Temple Veil was torn, the only priest we have or need is the Lord Jesus Christ, not some pedophile in a black suit and white collar."

That is it in a nutshell. Christ set up the black suits. The natural law dictates an intermediary step/stage/person. Christ is the intermediary between God and Man. And there is an intermediary between Christ and his faithful----called the black suits. Christ set that up.

Protestantism is not a reformation but rebellion against God. The Puritans which are the intellectual base of the founding of this country were rebellious. Thus, rebellion, the constant drumming of rebellion, is the afteraffects of Protestantism. It is secularized. The anti-clericalism of Protestantism has moved into the anarchism of Libertarianism and the "freedom" of atheists. The WASP has shot himself in the foot.

Authority and the subject must both be taught Virtue. The four virtues are Righteousness (i.e. duty, honor, piety, obedience), Temperance (self-control), Prudence, and Manliness.

None of that is being taught today. It is the lack of Virtue in all aspects of our society. Protestantism teaches rebellion against The Church and so it by example teaches rebellion and suspicion against rightful authority. The Protestant is always unsettled because he is always fighting, always struggling against "The Church". As he struggles against "The Church", he must always struggle against "The Government". The Church ain't around for him to pick on, so the surrogate becomes the policeman.

Blogger Michael Maier November 28, 2014 11:20 AM  

"And there is an intermediary between Christ and his faithful----called the black suits. Christ set that up."

Oh really? My salvation requires a mortal man? Biblical citation on that, please ?

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 11:24 AM  

Shut up Wheeler. This isn't a post about the catholic protestant divide.

Anonymous Daniel November 28, 2014 11:37 AM  

This neck of the woods is crawling with cops. Time to clean 'em off. If they've got time to stop "turn signals" there are way, way, way too many of them.

Anonymous paradox November 28, 2014 11:37 AM  

Yes... make sure you record them... buy one of those fake pin cameras for your visor. Had a cop tell me no to all, am I under arrest, detained, and if I were free to go. If I'd continued to pursue those questions, I know he would have arrested me. That's when the video would prove my case. With no camera and my 2 year old son in the car, I didn't continue, case of picking your battles.

Blogger Rabbi B November 28, 2014 11:38 AM  

"Always ask him if you are arrested, and if not, if you are free to go."

'Wise as serpents and innocent as doves' comes to mind.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 11:47 AM  

But it is Nate. A philosopher always looks to First Causes. The behavior. Where does it originate? One sees a pattern; a paradigm is repeated again and again.

To Maier: "Biblical citation". No need. It has always been "The Life of the Church" which is called "tradition". Tradition is "The Life of the Church"--that is the authority. To require "bibilical citation" is an innovation of the 16th century. Before that, no Christian looked to "biblical citation". That is the Jewish instigation and criticizism that created Protestantism.

You all have to recognize THE TWO-WAY Street of this problem. You fail to see yourself as part of the problem. Western Culture and Western Civilization rests on Obedience; i.e. "We are not in this world to give the laws, but...in order to obey the commands of the gods".

What you are still fighting is the Authoritarianism of the Catholic Church. Now, you are fighting the Authoritarianism of the Government. You just morphed your anti-clericalism into anti-policing.

The drug culture of the sixties is part of this anti-authoritarianism. The anti-authoritarianism of the drug culture bleeds into policing. Then, in your anti-authoritarianism is push back against policing.

Your whole concept of "freedom" as the basis of society is all wrong and malevant. "Freedom" is the basis of atheist society but is not Western Culture or Civilization. Your anti-authoritarianism is rather anti-civilization.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 11:49 AM  

if you have a corporation I suggest purchasing your cars under its name. Then install cameras and then if you ever get pulled over you can blame the company for the cameras.

"Officer before we get started I need to inform you that this is a company vehicle and there are cameras installed and running. I apologize but I don't have the ability to disable the cameras."

like it or not... you gain nothing by giving the cop a reason to label you "asshole". If you present it like I have described... there is a good chance you won't be. Like wise... if you carry, I suggest when the officer asks for you drivers license you hand him both your DL and your CCW. This is a very non alarming way to let the cop know you are armed. Far better than answering "yes" when he asks if there are any weapons in the car.

No.. I don't like them. Yes... I would prefer to be a dick to them.

But there is no reason to needless complicate your own life. Being a prick to a cop, to me, smacks of the blacks burning their own neighborhoods because they are pissed off.

Even if your anger is righteous... you're still hurting yourself.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 11:51 AM  

"But it is Nate. A philosopher always looks to First Causes. The behavior. Where does it originate? One sees a pattern; a paradigm is repeated again and again. "

It is not Wheeler. Because Protestantism was not the first time faux authority of Rome was rejected.

You love to bash the baptists. But you ignore the fact that every other church Paul founded rejected Rome's claims.

Every. Single. One.

Anonymous paradox November 28, 2014 11:51 AM  

That is it in a nutshell. Christ set up the black suits. The natural law dictates an intermediary step/stage/person.

If a Christian cleric has apostolic succession and has a homely on the greatness of gay marriage, in contradiction to Christian doctrine, he no longer has teaching authority.

I second Nate's motion, Wheeler shut-up.

Blogger richard w comerford November 28, 2014 12:12 PM  

Mr. Nate:

You posted in part:

"But you ignore the fact that every other church Paul founded rejected Rome's claims."

I know little about history but I think St. Paul founded churches at: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Colossae, and Hieropolis.

Looking at a modern map there are today Christians in full communion with Rome living in all of those cities and areas.

By full communion I mean the Christians in question accept in full the Churches teaching on faith and morals.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 28, 2014 12:15 PM  

A couple of examples of Jesus' teaching when traditions are elevated to the wrong level ...

Mark 7
verse 9: And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

Colossians 2
verse 8: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ.

Anonymous Anon November 28, 2014 12:19 PM  

"You hand him both your DL and your CCW."

That's when he tells you to step out of the car...

Anonymous Anon November 28, 2014 12:22 PM  

"Far better than answering "yes" when he asks if there are any weapons in the car."

It's far better to answer no when there actually is.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 12:59 PM  

"I know little about history but I think St. Paul founded churches at: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Colossae, and Hieropolis."

I was referring to the Great Schism. The fact that you didn't instantly recognize that indicates that you spoke truly. You do know little history.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 1:03 PM  

"That's when he tells you to step out of the car..."

I've done this about a dozen times. I've never been asked to step out of the car. I've never had a cop be anything but appreciative of the move. Most just nod and hand it back. a couple times I've gotten some variation of "if I don't see yours you won't see mine."

Blogger Rabbi B November 28, 2014 1:30 PM  

Putting the Catholic/Protestant divide aside, I think there may be some common ground to be found with Wheeler's argument, at least with an underlying principle as I understand it.

When a few of the disciples were before the Sanhedrin in the first century, they found themselves faced with a dilemma. They were being ordered to stop preaching in the Messiah's name, and this order came from a body that was invested with G-d's authority. In both instances, if the disciples stopped preaching in His name or if they continued, they were acting in disobedience to G-d's authority. So, what did they do? They obeyed G-d and continued to preach in His name, and at the same time they submitted to the authority of the Sanhedrin by receiving a beating for disobeying their orders.

As believers, we may find ourselves in similar positions. For the Scriptures teach that all authority is G-d's authority and no where do I find that illegitimacy to be an excuse for rebellion.

The Israelites did not leave Egypt without Pharaoh's permission.

At a certain point in his reign as king, Saul was formally rejected as king over Israel and it might be argued that he had become illegitimate, and yet David loathed to touch G-d's anointed and summarily executed the Amalekite who claimed responsibility for taking Saul's life.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not submit to the King's order to bow down to his image, but they did submit to the punishment in the fiery furnace for disobeying the King's authority, and did not exit the furnace except upon the king's orders.

Nor did Daniel later submit to the king's order to cease praying, but submitted himself to the punishment for contravening that order - a night in the den of lions.

When Pilate asserted his authority to either set the Messiah free or not, Jesus reminded Pilate that any authority he possessed was of Divine origin, as is all authority.

Paul adjures slaves to be submissive to their masters - even if those masters are Godless and cruel.

And I could go on. The point is, as believers we are adjured to obey and submit to the authorities and we are not permitted to revile a ruler among our people, etc, and this will at times put us in difficult straits with earthly authorities who are determined to abuse and misuse their G-d given authority in order to oppose Him and His representatives here on earth.

Regardless, to preserve a Godly testimony here on earth, we are obligated to submit to G-d and His authority and the authorities He has established and be willing to suffer and endure the consequences in situations where it is imperative that we obey G-d rather than men who are abusing and misusing authority which is on loan to them from G-d.

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. (Titus)

As ambassadors here on earth, I believe our conduct, in all our interactions with various authorities, must be above reproach, conduct that may, at the end of the day, win some of those authorities to the Truth.

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of G-d our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy)

Again, Protestant/Catholic debating completely aside - I did find some merit in some of what Wheeler has expressed. I also recognize that Vox's point is addressing another issue entirely, and my comment is not directed to his post as much as to Wheeler's comments, FWIW. So, if I am deemed guilty of hijacking the thread here, I will humbly submit to the authority of the host and not whine and cry if my precious comment is deleted as per the rules. My hypocrisy only goes so far . . .

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 1:37 PM  

They're worse than highway thieves. As Lysander Spooner said, at least the thief doesn't continue to follow you down the road, demanding both your money and adoration. The thief doesn't pretend that he's doing it for your own good, for your safety. The thief doesn't pretend that he is righteous and just.

Blogger RBooster Man November 28, 2014 1:50 PM  

If the authorities/elites are loyal to you, then it is your duty to be loyal to them because they have The Mandate of Heaven.

But if they don't have The Mandate of Heaven...

Blogger Eric November 28, 2014 2:27 PM  

I used to play a lot of relatively high stakes poker. People regularly showed up to the card club with $20k or more, and it was well known among poker players if you got robbed it would most likely be by the cops. If you had over some certain dollar amount, which was not set in law but rather department policy and varied depending on where you were, they would just take your money.

It's after they take your money that the real farce begins. If they can't charge you with a crime they'll assume you're a drug dealer and actually sue your money. That's right - there are court cases that read something like "The County of Orange v $25,732.54". Technically you're not even a party involved in the suit - it's the state on one side and a pile of bills on the other.

So you have to hire a lawyer and petition the court to become a party in the proceedings. If the court doesn't grant it your money loses in a summary judgment. If it does you have to prove you came by your money legitimately. None of the normal protections apply, since it's civil court and you're not even a defendant.

And the cops have a huge incentive to do this, too, since they get to keep most of the money. There's some percentage split where the local PD gets some, the state gets some, and the feds get some. How this is different from big city organized crime someone will have to explain to me.

Blogger IM2L844 November 28, 2014 2:32 PM  

Even if your anger is righteous... you're still hurting yourself.

Exactly. All the videos I've seen where some supposed innocent ends up dead begins with a cascade set off by some idiotic and unnecessary show of indignation.

Blogger richard w comerford November 28, 2014 2:36 PM  

Mr. Nate:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"I was referring to the Great Schism."

You mean the Great Schism of 1054? IIRC the Legate (Humbert) of a already dead Pope invalidly and illicitly excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople; who in turn excommunicated the legate; an act btw contrary to the wishes of the Eastern Roman Emperor who had asked for the Papal delegation to Constantinople to discuss an alliance against the ravages of my ancestors..

You also posted in part:

"The fact that you didn't instantly recognize that indicates that you spoke truly. You do know little history."

That is certainly true. But prior to the Patriarch Cerularius vs. Cardinal Humbert kerfuffle of 1054 there were already numerous, and far more serious falling out between Christians.

Indeed the rapid and startling success of the Muslim conquest in the Middle East prior to 1054 was due in great part to the incredible divisions btw Christians. I read that a Muslim column of @ 7,000 men easily captured the Christian city of Alexandria with a population of @ 1-million, because the Christians inside the city would not give up their factional feuds.

Kind of like today.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous FP November 28, 2014 2:51 PM  

So Wheeler, should we just bow down before our lords who fear bananas and pull people over to give them ice cream for an ad campaign/feel good about our oppressing you campaign?

http://pix11.com/2014/11/27/man-arrested-after-pointing-banana-like-handgun-at-police-officers/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M_nvQht7-c

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/fun-prank-or-abuse-power-cops-pull-over-drivers-give-them-ice-cream-157583

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 3:12 PM  

IM2L,
Did you see the video of Kelly Thomas being brutally murdered? He sat calmly on the ground while being threatened by armed thugs, then he was viciously attacked. It's hard to imagine that the 12 year old gunned down in Cleveland was able to do much mouthing off in the half a second between when the cop opened the door and when he shot him.

If you haven't seen anything other than vibrants chimping out, sure, I guess I understand what you're saying. But YouTube is right freaking there, man. Just type in police brutality, or Killed by police.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 3:14 PM  

Thank you, Rabbi B with your erudite response. I appreciate it greatly and it is exactly what I am getting at.

My second point---is that "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure". The point being, that all citizens be trained in Virtue while young. When these people then move into private or government jobs--they act virtuously.



The complaint of the OP is a surface observation than can and should be cured by proper political and educational practices so what is described in the OP doesn't happen.

I do not dispute that America has huge problems. Our government has changed. The America of the FFofA does not exist anymore. The Americans have set up a propositional society, i.e. ideologicial. Ideology changes like wind direction changes. We now live in a Marxist government. Marxism is based on progressivism and the creed is conform or die.

How this is changed, don't ask me, I don't have a clue. But to take this out on the police officer and on his authority is wrong. Our society is evil. Christians now, are living under a pseudo-Roman Empire of sorts. And it was Heretical Christians in alliance with Atheist Europeans engaged in the atheist "Enlightenment" that brought this upon us.

Protestants hated the yoke of The Church---Now, the Protestants will live under the Beast of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. You rejected the yoke of the Roman Catholic Church and now, you must live under the Devil.

Authority is Authority. You will all live under authority. Either you accept the authority of the Roman Church---Or you will live under the authority of the Devil.

Now---you will have what you wanted. Don't cry. You made your bed---now lie in it.

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 3:30 PM  

Wheeler, I'm only using this analogy because it matters: was Oskar Schindler wrong for disobeying Nazi law?

I know we're not the Nazis, but America does not have a Christian government. Demanding that we respect authority because it is authority is taking Christ's command that we uphold the law of the land out of context.

Does the good Christian in sharia compliant countries remain a good Christian by following the law of the land and denouncing his faith? Is the Islamist cop who arrests a Christian a good person for upholding his law?

American government is not Christian law. Police officers are not saintly disciples of truth. And Jesus never commanded that you break God's law (thou shalt not steal) in order to uphold the laws of the land. Your perversion of doctrine in order to protect your true faith, Statism, is hollow.

Blogger IM2L844 November 28, 2014 3:52 PM  

Did you see the video of Kelly Thomas being brutally murdered?

Yes, I have and the point is not to justify what happens to these people, but to point out that displays of indignation, righteous or not, are seldom smart. If Kelly Thomas had simply sat down when he was told to "sit down" and otherwise been cooperative, he would very like be alive today.

Anonymous map November 28, 2014 4:13 PM  

Wheeler, what does anything you have to say have to do with being robbed by the police?

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 4:22 PM  

I see what you're saying, but there are puh-lenty of videos of cops, completely unprovoked, violently abusing or outright murdering people.

Watch that video of the cop shooting that kid in Cleveland. Half a second between opening the car door and murdering a child.

Anonymous gwood November 28, 2014 4:37 PM  

“In a State of Nature, it is true, that a Man of superior Force may beat or rob me; but then it is true, that I am at full Liberty to defend myself, or make Reprisal by Surprise or by Cunning, or by any other way in which I may be superior to him. But in Political Society ... if I attempt to avenge myself, the whole Force of that Society is ready to complete my Ruin.”
Edmund Burke
“A Vindication of Natural Society”

Anonymous The Sanhedrin Killed the Messiah November 28, 2014 4:38 PM  

When a few of the disciples were before the Sanhedrin in the first century, they found themselves faced with a dilemma. They were being ordered to stop preaching in the Messiah's name, and this order came from a body that was invested with G-d's authority. In both instances, if the disciples stopped preaching in His name or if they continued, they were acting in disobedience to G-d's authority.

Let us see what the Messiah thought of the authority of the Sanhedrin, in Mark Ch. 7:

"Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me.' "How be it in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men."

"For laying aside the commandments of God you observe your own traditions. You reject the commandment of God that you may keep your own tradition."

"Thus you make the word of God of none effect by your tradition that you have handed down."

Blogger IM2L844 November 28, 2014 4:47 PM  

Watch that video of the cop shooting that kid in Cleveland. Half a second between opening the car door and murdering a child.

Regardless of whether or not what those police did was reprehensible, cold blooded murder, what Tamir Rice did was monumentally stupid. I can't even imagine a reasonably smart child, like, say, Ender, for instance, that has had some semblance of prescient parental guidance doing anything so completely and utterly moronic. Nate is absolutely right on that point. BTW, there are lots of other legal and financial advantages to creative incorporation for the average person besides the one Nate mentioned.

Blogger AMDG November 28, 2014 4:50 PM  

I keep a copy of this in my glove box for the police:

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY


Police Officer, please understand that:

• I hereby invoke my 1st Amendment right to safely video and audio record you as a public official in a public place.

• I hereby invoke my 5th Amendment right to remain silent. Any statement I make, or consent I allegedly give in response to your questions or requests is made under protest, under duress, and in submission to your claim of lawful authority to force me to provide you with such information.

• I hereby invoke my 6th Amendment right to consult a criminal defense attorney. I refuse to speak to you without advice of counsel. Do not ask me any questions outside the presence of my attorney.

• I hereby invoke my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not consent to any search or seizure of myself, my home, my car, my person or any property (including recording equipment) in my possession.

• I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and to be free from your interference with my person or affairs. If I am not being detained or under arrest, I demand permission to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.

• If I am under arrest, I hereby invoke and exercise my rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

• If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I hereby waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded a reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.


Thank you.

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 5:16 PM  

Ok then, John Crawford. Gunned down holding a toy gun in a Wal-Mart. Police lied about that one too. There was a 17 year old shot in his own doorway holding a Wii remote. There was the comedy central producer gunned down for trying to help stop a crime.

How about the ladies delivering newspapers in LA during the Corner Dorner manhunt?

What Tamir Whatever did before the cops showed up was monumentally stupid. No disagreement there. But once the cops showed up, the only thing the video shows him doing is getting murdered. It's the only thing he has time to do.

Anonymous map November 28, 2014 5:43 PM  

While I do think that police officers are not your friends and should not be trusted, I completely reject any examples of cops shooting minorities as evidence of their tyranny, whether it's gunning down Michael Brown or some kid in Cleveland.

Minorities, especially blacks, think they own the public space. They think it is ok to be loud, rude and obnoxious in public. They even think it is ok to be violent and threatening. If you, as a white person, are on the receiving end of such behavior, your duty is to take it. You're supposed to put up with their obnoxious behavior. If the behavior converts to threats and violence, then it is your duty to cower in fear, beg forgiveness or even die all the while thinking about the great wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow and inequality, like some liberal teacher in a public school.

What you are not supposed to do is fight back. That is flipping the script. The rioting is not over some perceived injustice committed by an out-of-control law enforcement. The rioting is blacks complaining about a white person not allowing a black to control the public space.

The same problem exists with this kid in Cleveland. He was probably threatening other kids with the gun, you know, practicing his thieving skills for later, when a crying child told on him to an irate parent. The parent then calls the police. Kid got shot.

Good riddance.

Blogger Chris Mallory November 28, 2014 5:50 PM  

"Mr. Mallory: Meaning no offense, but you are a liberal."

No, actually I am a conservative. I am conserving the way of life my ancestors founded. When the Pennsylvania farmers were fighting the Whiskey Rebellion my ancestors were making the political climate west of the mountains such that the tyrant Hamilton could not even find men brave enough to try and collect taxes on the population. We do no harm to any man. We bow to no man. No King but Jesus.


Jesus Christ, himself said he hated the "Church" of Rome. Revelation 2:6. Face it Wheeler, you serve the Whore of Babylon, not the Son of God.

Blogger John Wright November 28, 2014 5:57 PM  

When I was a newspaperman and worked with the State Troopers in Maryland covering the crime beat, I found them honest and hardworking men given a very difficult task to do, professional and courageous.

This includes one Trooper Chaot, a friend of the family and a friend of mine who passed away.

While Vox Day knows my respect for him is great indeed, nonetheless, to call such men thieves is slanderous beyond insult, beyond belief, almost beyond forgiveness, and I strongly urge anyone reading Vox Day's opinion on the matter to contradict him sharply, in the interest of not letting such unconscionable falsehoods grow.

These are the men who protect us from thieves.

They are the law. I suggest treating them with respect and due deference.

Legally, an officer may stop you without sufficient probable cause to make an arrest, so you are free to go; and he can also arrest you and hold you, at least in this jurisdiction, for twenty four hours without charge without running afoul of Habeas Corpus.

Let me also recommend that if you are going to dick around with the cops and play barracks-room lawyer, you learn the law and know your rights, and know what can and cannot happen if you up the ante or call a bluff.

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 6:01 PM  

Map,
Christopher Roupe (holding Wii remote) was white. Jeffrey Winkler (Tosh.0 producer) was white. Kelly Thomas was white. The ladies delivering the paper may have been minorities, but you can hardly say that they deserved to get shot at over a hundred times. I've no love for the ghetto community, but you can't look at a case like John Crawford and side with the minority because done other ghetto thugs act like shit? That's exactly why the cops moved on from only attacking minorities to attacking all of us: they know they can get away with it.

Blogger Michael Maier November 28, 2014 6:04 PM  

The same problem exists with this kid in Cleveland. He was probably threatening other kids with the gun, you know, practicing his thieving skills for later, when a crying child told on him to an irate parent. The parent then calls the police. Kid got shot.

Good riddance.


Wow... that's certainly a view.

The articles I've seen said that 911 call said "It's probably a toy gun".

No shots fired. No violence involved I've read.

Watch the video. Those pigs rolled up on that kid and likely freaked him right out.

Then they burst out of the car in spitting distance and shot him instantly.

That's beyond fucked up.

A thinking peace officer would have pulled up a good distance away and used a bullhorn to say "Attention, kid. Please move very slowly and put the gun on the ground right now."

Offing kids like that is just evil. I'm not saying the cops were looking to murder the kid but if they were, it would look just like that.

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 6:07 PM  

John,
When they can take your property without charging you with a crime, without proving that you committed a crime, how is that not theft? They are thieves. The fact that the theft is legal doesn't make it any less of a theft. What does the 4th amendment even mean if cops can seize your effects without due process?

Where are the good cops speaking out against this immoral practice and refusing to enforce it?

Anonymous Wyrd November 28, 2014 6:08 PM  

Thank you, John Wright. I love Vox in a totally hetero way and eagerly await each article on this site, but when it comes to the police, he goes full retard. But I can't hold it against him as I imagine my own retard quotient is higher than his, overall.

Blogger Josh November 28, 2014 6:09 PM  

While Vox Day knows my respect for him is great indeed, nonetheless, to call such men thieves is slanderous beyond insult, beyond belief, almost beyond forgiveness, and I strongly urge anyone reading Vox Day's opinion on the matter to contradict him sharply, in the interest of not letting such unconscionable falsehoods grow.

These are the men who protect us from thieves.

They are the law. I suggest treating them with respect and due deference.


Yeah...we saw that in Ferguson this week, those brave cops protecting private property...

Oh wait...that didn't happen.

They are not the law. They are merely the servants of the state, no different from the orcs of minas morgul or the uruk hai of isengard.

Blogger Iowahine November 28, 2014 6:11 PM  

IM2L844, re: creative incorporation

Please expound or link to references. Thank you.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 6:14 PM  

"They are the law. I suggest treating them with respect and due deference. "

Men are not the Law Mr Wright. You of all people know to use language more precisely than this.

One who steals is a thief. If the police are systematically stealing... then the police are thieves.

Blogger Josh November 28, 2014 6:16 PM  

Also Mr Wright:

Under the federal Equitable Sharing Program, police have seized $2.5 billion since 2001 from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued. Police reasoned that the money was crime-related. About $1.7 billion was sent back to law enforcement agencies for their use.

Blogger Josh November 28, 2014 6:19 PM  

There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 6:30 PM  

The biggest blind spot the conservative man has is a flaw in the system of his beloved civilization. Because it is that system that he has so much faith in.

Evil men have corrupted that system however... and it is no longer worth defending.

If one wishes to save civilization... he must start by accepting that the government in its current form must collapse.

Anonymous Supernaut November 28, 2014 6:32 PM  

When I was a newspaperman and worked with the State Troopers in Maryland covering the crime beat, I found them honest and hardworking men given a very difficult task to do, professional and courageous.

This includes one Trooper Chaot, a friend of the family and a friend of mine who passed away.

While Vox Day knows my respect for him is great indeed, nonetheless, to call such men thieves is slanderous beyond insult, beyond belief, almost beyond forgiveness, and I strongly urge anyone reading Vox Day's opinion on the matter to contradict him sharply, in the interest of not letting such unconscionable falsehoods grow.

These are the men who protect us from thieves.


Dear Mr. Wright, from a fan of your work, I must say that I disagree with you most vehemently on this issue. As a newspaper man, the police you worked with most certainly were not 100% honest with you. I guarantee it.

I am of personal acquaintances with and have several good friends who are police officers. Training in a martial arts organization with a number of officers who are also members for years, has given me an inside view of law enforcement culture. I have attended multiple drinking sessions with officers off-duty and have keenly observed the way in which the officers discuss their careers and attitudes towards the citizenry. I have been pulled over and released without ticketing or arrest on numerous occasions in the past decade by simply name dropping officers I know.

While I respect and indeed like my close friends and acquaintances who are officers, they are what they are and I see what their career entails.

I know for a fact that corruption in Law Enforcement is endemic, and that most officers, even if they are not corrupt themselves, are aware of and do not do anything about their fellow officers who are. The "thin blue line" is very real, and the Law Enforcement agents generally have more loyalty to that then they do to the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. As a newspaper man, they would most certainly would have labored to keep you from seeing any aspect of this.

I personally know a rather high ranking officer who retired because he was tired of covering up for corruption of his fellow officers, as well as the change in Law Enforcement training and militaristic mindset that all new police recruits are inculcated with, as well as a great distaste for all of the police departments across the country who have been trained in coordination with DHS to prepare for martial law imposition in this country. He has attended several training seminars over the past decade with other high ranking officers from all across the country in which the idea of martial law being instituted is discussed not as an if proposition, but a when.

The cops have been trained to view themselves as above the law they enforce for the rest of us, and while some officers no doubt have a moral consciousness grounded in their religious beliefs, they still work in a career in which the culture of corruption is ignored and covered up because to the rank and file, holding your fellow officers accountable to the laws they enforce is considered disloyal unless it's for a truly egregious act that garnered public attention.

Any officer with any moral conscience knows that to enforce the law on any corrupt fellow officers, will most likely result in a loss of his own career, retirement, and other benefits that go along with his job, so most turn a blind eye to their fellow officers corruption.

This argument that you present here is precisely the sort that enables this culture of covert corruption that the corrupt policemen count on to lie, cheat and steal with impunity and face no consequences for. Not every cop is personally corrupt. But most are to some degree or another, but most every cop knows a fellow officer who is.

That is not slanderous, nor is it libelous. It is the simple truth.

Blogger Nate November 28, 2014 6:33 PM  

Conservative is just a libertarian who hasn't gotten mugged by the police yet.

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer November 28, 2014 6:33 PM  

"to call such men thieves is slanderous beyond insult"

An officer who arrogates the property of another unto himself on the basis of civil forfeiture laws is very often a thief. That's just a fact arising from the definition of thievery. If you don't want cops to be regarded as thieves, teach them not to steal. Pretty simple.

Blogger richard w comerford November 28, 2014 6:34 PM  

Mr. Chris Mallory;

You posted in part:

"Jesus Christ, himself said he hated the "Church" of Rome. Revelation 2:6. "

The followers of Nicolas cited in Revelation 2:6, according to some Church Fathers, indulged in and advocated for adultery.

Rome, as evidenced by its catechism (easily found online) condemns adultery as a serious or mortal sin under all conditions and circumstances.

Rome also teaches that, objectively speaking, a person who dies with an unforgiven mortal soul on its soul (such as adultery) is damned for all eternity.

May we all be preserved from such a death.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Supernaut November 28, 2014 6:49 PM  

They are the law.

No, for the most part, they are above the law.

I suggest treating them with respect and due deference.

This, however is a good suggestion. This is how one should deal with any armed man who has the power to kill you, assault you, or arrest you and subject you to the penal system. You never know which kind of cop has pulled you over, a good one or a corrupt one, so you have to assume the worst case scenario and deal with him or her accordingly.

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 7:21 PM  

Like that line from the departed. "You can be a cop, or you can be a criminal. When you're staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, what's the difference?"

Anonymous Porphyry November 28, 2014 7:25 PM  

"They are the law. I suggest treating them with respect and due deference." Well, if the law has the power to tackle you search rape you and put you under an APOW for 12 hours just b/c you ignore them over a suspicious person report, while walking in your own neighborhood, we've proven that US democracy is no longer a reasonable method of doing things. (personal experience and consistent with your comment)

Anonymous VD November 28, 2014 7:38 PM  

While Vox Day knows my respect for him is great indeed, nonetheless, to call such men thieves is slanderous beyond insult, beyond belief, almost beyond forgiveness, and I strongly urge anyone reading Vox Day's opinion on the matter to contradict him sharply, in the interest of not letting such unconscionable falsehoods grow.

I am, of course, second to no man in my admiration and respect for John Wright. Nevertheless, I fear you have failed to apply some of the very lessons of your books to what we are now witnessing across the police forces of America, Mr. Wright. All institutions and all men are corruptible. And when the police are no longer stopping highwaymen, but have become highwaymen themselves to the tune of $2.5 billion stolen dollars, what can any honest man possibly call them but thieves?

Perhaps I can recommend to you my interview with an officer of the Dallas Police Department about the costs of the drug war, the militarization of the police and the problem of police corruption.

Being a gym rat, I have lifted weights for years with men belonging to the police forces of three countries. (Not, obviously, at the same time.) A police friend from the gym and his wife even attended my wedding. Now, here is the troublesome thing. For the most part, even the American police more or less agree with me that the police departments in the USA have been corrupted through the mechanism of the federal drug war.

I am hardly the first to observe that the policeman armed with a .38 charged with keeping the peace is not the heavily armed, heavily armored Law Enforcement Officer of today. And let's not forget that the Gestapo were the Geheime Staatspolizei. They, too, were the enforcement arm of the legal law of the land.

The police are no better, and no worse, than the governments that employ them. Indeed, I suggest the state of a society's police make for a useful symptom to diagnose that society's political health.

Blogger IM2L844 November 28, 2014 7:45 PM  

Please expound or link to references. Thank you.

I don't know of any links off the top of my head. All I have is the experience of having built several successful corporations and having played a role in a couple that went bankrupt.

If you can create a small business and incorporate, even if all the business does is break even, you can legally follow all the rules and still use it to enhance you and your families personal financial security.

The trick is in being honest to a fault, extremely meticulous with recordkeeping and determining what will be designated as the corporation's assets and its justifiable obligations. It's easy to screw up and get in deep trouble if you simply try to muddle through and wing it or if you're crooked. Working the system, however, is entirely in bounds.

Anonymous VD November 28, 2014 7:51 PM  

Where are the good cops speaking out against this immoral practice and refusing to enforce it?

See the interview with Nick Novello. They do exist. And, not infrequently, they soon become ex-cops as a direct consequence of their speaking out.

Anonymous Wyrd November 28, 2014 7:54 PM  

The police are no better, and no worse, than the governments that employ them.

Anyone who has read Victoria will appreciate this. There are many levels of governance. Local does not equate to federal.

Anonymous map November 28, 2014 8:11 PM  

Ghost,
"Christopher Roupe (holding Wii remote) was white. Jeffrey Winkler (Tosh.0 producer) was white. Kelly Thomas was white. The ladies delivering the paper may have been minorities, but you can hardly say that they deserved to get shot at over a hundred times. I've no love for the ghetto community, but you can't look at a case like John Crawford and side with the minority because done other ghetto thugs act like shit? That's exactly why the cops moved on from only attacking minorities to attacking all of us: they know they can get away with it."

Police officers shooting white people should be fully investigated. But make no mistake. Cops are not waling on white people because they got their practice from waling on black people. Cops are doing so under orders from Democrat administrations who need to equalize levels of arrest, conviction and incarceration. The thin blue line is under orders to make it tough on white people. Minorities simply make it tough on themselves.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 28, 2014 8:30 PM  

Nate: The saying that I learn goes as this,
A conservative is a liberal that has been mugged.
A libertarian is a conservative that has been falsely accused.

Anybody that participates and support the system that "arrests" property (the owner or custodian not ever been convicted of a crime, or even charged) is a tyrant.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 28, 2014 8:31 PM  

And by supporting the system, it includes all who support anyone that is part of the system.

Anonymous map November 28, 2014 9:23 PM  

Again, while I think civil forfeiture is heinous. I do have to ask: why are these people carrying so much cash around? Look at the evidence provided by the Washington Post article: $17,000 for a bbq joint; $18,000 for buying a used car; $25,000 to pay off gambling debts; $75,000 to buy a chinese restaurant.

I mean really: in what legitimate circumstance does one need to carry that kind of money around? Are money orders or cashier checks really out of the question for any wholesale commercial operation?

Blogger Josh November 28, 2014 9:29 PM  

I do have to ask: why are these people carrying so much cash around?

Who the fuck cares?

It's no one's damn business.

Anonymous zen0 November 28, 2014 9:38 PM  

These are the men who protect us from thieves.

No, they come after the thief has gone and tell you they can't do much.
Meanwhile, Zerohedge has published some testimony of cops explaining where this confiscated money goes.

It does not go to widows and orphans, I assure you.

Anonymous zen0 November 28, 2014 9:51 PM  

@ map

I mean really: in what legitimate circumstance does one need to carry that kind of money around? Are money orders or cashier checks really out of the question for any wholesale commercial operationI mean really: in what legitimate circumstance does one need to carry that kind of money around? Are money orders or cashier checks really out of the question for any wholesale commercial operation

What Josh said, plus, when I go to the states I take a lot of cash because 1) No one takes traveller's checques any more and 2) Credit cards charge a 2.5% fee over and above currency exchange differences.

You are allowed by law to take $10K cash over the border, but the cops will take as little as $10K, and probably after they have been tipped off by their bum-buddy in the customs racket.

Don't be so naive.

I know people that have been robbed by cops in Mexico just for what is in their wallet. It is the same principle, just a different parameter.

It is like the old joke about would you prostitute yourself for a million dollars and the bitch say yah, then you say how about 50 and she say do you think I am a whore and you say just negotiatin.

Anonymous zen0 November 28, 2014 9:57 PM  

This whole thing is no different than when authorities confiscated Japanese Canadian property (for the benefit of individuals in the power structure) when The japs were interred because of the impending invasion of the West Coast. (Forgive me, Ilk, for I have sinned.......)

Blogger Felix Bellator November 28, 2014 10:02 PM  

An interesting take on the emphasis on police brutality and racism where none exists, and why stories of real police brutality go unreported, starts at about 7:10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=serhXCQbFfU#t=430

Anonymous zen0 November 28, 2014 10:21 PM  

@ Rabbi B

- I did find some merit in some of what Wheeler has expressed.

As did I. Especially the part about anarchy. It seems as if the more laws there are, the more anarchy prevails, and it is particularly rife amongst the lawless authorities.

This is the anarchy that was expected to break down Christendom as foretold by the prophets (if you follow a particular interpretation) but was not quite appreciated in its fullness by those who expected it at the turn of the last century.

Wheeler of course laments the fall of Christendom, equating it with the rebellion against God' anointed, but others see it as the fall of Babylon in the anarchy that will result in the final establishment of the true Kingdom of God.

The Jewish Nation of Priests and a Holy Nation became a counterfeit and was replaced. The Christian Holy Nation became a counterfeit and is in the process of being replaced.

Although the transition is anarchic, the outcome should be looked forward to with joy.

Blogger Ghost November 28, 2014 10:22 PM  

"Why does anyone need to have that much cash..."

That's Piers Morgan logic. You're better than that. Why does anyone need to have an AR? Justify your rights to me, peasant.

That's how that comes off. Which is why you'll see many of the comments saying, "none if your fucking business, that's why."

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit November 28, 2014 10:49 PM  

'All cops are crooks and thugs," yes? But not completely, because then there's my next door neighbor, the cop, who made weekly "well-being" checks on a mentally challenged woman, bringing her dog food, and promising her that "whatever happens" her dog would be taken care of. That dog became our beloved pet.

@Wheeler. As a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) I place scriptural authority above that of the church (and boy howdee do I have support for it, scripturally speaking). If you really are a Catholic, and not a troll (1), you place the authority of the Holy Church above (or at least on a par with) scripture, and you have plenty of authority to back that up. Since we Protestants and Catholics disagree so strongly about such fundamentally opposed premises, all that's left is how we treat each other. Christ (and the Holy Church) both have excellent guidelines on this. Let's start here, shall we?

@The Shyster "you are ever stopped for burned out license plate light or failure to signal for a turn, realize that you have been stopped for matching a profile.". Except when my lights were burned out, and I had to get them changed. Didn't even get a ticket. These men (and a few women) are my neighbors; they go to our church. How do they manage to be decent men if there's nothing, nowhere and no hope but corruption?

All of you write as if the men serving in the police force don't have an often-thankless task where they risk their lives for folks who spit on them. I'm not arguing that they not corrupt, that in some cities the corruption is deep and wide. I'm arguing that by dividing the world into "us and them," by delighting in sticking it to "the man" we sound more like lefties than rational men and women.

What does it look like when the police, as an institution, is a force for good in a free democratic republic? What can we do, as citizens to bring this about?

Your "what to do when stopped by the police video is excellent advice. It's right up their with deBecker's advice (2) to parents to tell your kids "when lost, find a nice mommy". You never know when a random guy in the mall, or a random cop on the road is good guy or one of the twenty-per centers. But it's the place to start. It's not the final answer.

Sorry I ran long. It takes me longer to write shorter, I'm afraid, than I have time before I have to get back to work.


1. @Chris Mallory. "Pedophiles in a black suit" when there are men like Father Kinvi serving our Lord? For shame.)

(2) The Gift of Fear. Get it at a bookstore or library.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 10:59 PM  

Zeno, your interpretation of history is downright Sabbatian!

The Christendom was never countefeit. Never. And that is the problem.

I just finished listening to a talk by Richard Gamble [url=http://mises.org/library/woodrow-wilsons-revolution-within-form]Woodrow Wilson's Revolution within the form[/url]. There he points out that Woodrow Wilson did change America fundamentally. He also pointed out that the conversion of America due to war was called "war socialism".

The same thing can be said about the Drug War. The Drug Culture in America was fomented by the Sabbatian Jews of the Frankfurt School. They knew by Hegel's dialectic of history what this would do--transform America. It has. The Drug War is "war socialism". The Frankist elite control both aspects of it. The Sabbatians push drugs as counterculture. The ACLU giving rights to druggies and turning the law upside down while persecuting and undermining police powers and effects. The police caught in the middle are corrupted by money, power and sex of the drug trade. While the educational system is dumbed down and it is prevented from any form of character training. While the criminal element of the Drug culture is used to transform American law into authoritarianism for progressives.

The OP attacks the superficiality of the problem. The problem over and over again is the lack of Virtue, training in Virtue and that America is fundamentally flawed from its foundation with the Puritans.

The answer is to all return to the Roman Catholic Church; a return to Monarchy and righteous authoritarianism of Throne and Altar. That is the answer. Libertarianism is NOT and can Never be the answer. "Freedom" is the Sabbatian/atheist goal. Salvation is the goal of Throne and Altar.

Throne and Altar was never counterfeit. It was the Jewish influence that decieved gullible Europeans to destroy their shepards. That is in a nutshell, the whole problem.

As Aristotle said, "All things are either in Authority or in Subjection". Once the European heretics, by influence of the Jews, thought that the Bishop was counterfeit, He moved from the authority of God, to the authority of the Devil. The Bishop is the Hand of God. The bishop is the representative of God on earth. Jesus Christ gave authority to the bishops. You can't change that.

You have to return to Throne and Altar. That is the answer. Libertarianism is a form of nihilism. It will NOT solve any of your problems.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 11:02 PM  

Correcting the link: Woodrow wilson's Revolution within the form

I urge all and sundry to listen to this audio presentation.

Blogger Josh November 28, 2014 11:11 PM  

The answer is to all return to the Roman Catholic Church; a return to Monarchy and righteous authoritarianism of Throne and Altar. That is the answer. Libertarianism is NOT and can Never be the answer. "Freedom" is the Sabbatian/atheist goal. Salvation is the goal of Throne and Altar.

Do you ever read the words after you write them?

Anonymous zen0 November 28, 2014 11:15 PM  

@ John Wright

Legally, an officer may stop you without sufficient probable cause to make an arrest, so you are free to go; and he can also arrest you and hold you, at least in this jurisdiction, for twenty four hours without charge without running afoul of Habeas Corpus.

This is the appeal to legalism for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees.


Blogger richard w comerford November 28, 2014 11:32 PM  

Mr. W.LindsayWheeler
Re: Rome & Thieves with Badges

Tolkien, a daily communicant, once wrote that Lord of the Rings was a Catholic work. However even in the shire the Sheriffs became corrupt. Hence the cleansing of the Shire.

We live in a fallen world. No political system will be without corrupt cops, plumbers and lawyers.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger J Thomas November 28, 2014 11:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 28, 2014 11:38 PM  

Zeno and Josh.

The Puritans set the ideological basis of America. Most of our intelligentsia of America come from New England. Eric Voeglin points out that the Puritans were Gnostics. Richard Gamble says that Woodrow Wilson was Gnostic in the talk linked above.

Gnoticism has Jewish roots at the minimal and could very well be Jewish at the beginning. Mani of Manicheanism was a Jewish boy.

The "city on the hill" meme of the Puritan founding of America is Gnostic, even though Christ said something earlier. What Roman Catholicism does is split religion from state, whereas heretical Christianity melds the two together in a theocracy. Puritanism was a Mosaic theocracy. Christendom was a theocracy that respected the sphere of the state and the Natural Law. Heretical Protestantism does not recognize the Natural Law.

As Protestants loose their faith in a transcendent God, they turn their religion into secular millenariansim. It is all nihilism.

Outside of the Roman Catholic Church (and Orthodoxy) is nihilism. Your nihilism leads to totalitarianism as it mimics the Truth.

True liberty and freedom is only found in Christendom, the Yoke of Christ.

Anonymous Joe Friday November 29, 2014 12:20 AM  

“Don't answer, and they can just shoot you in the face and say that you were about to hit them with the car.”

You have the liberty not to answer police questions, but law enforcement on a consistent day to day basis does not open fire on the public. Unless, of course, you are vibrant or a white mongrel asking to be shot because you unduly risk the lives of others by patently refusing to police orders or decidedly resisting arrest. Then there is absolutely no sympathy in this particular situation.


“The authority is for those on the right side of the thin blue line and those participating or allowing the beast to grow deserve our full contempt.”


Full contempt? Nay. Due diligence to insist that the police adhere to their principles of justice. No different than holding citizens to this standard.


“He is the one carrying out the orders. A man of honor would quit.”



A man with honor would work to assist in assuring that people are held accountable rather than perpetually bitch about it.


“One great way to really screw with the police is to always vote not guilty when you are on a jury.”

This advice is horrifically short-sighted. Assume a white man raped a white girl who was eight years old, and the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. You would honestly fuck with that girl’s family to prove your point? I expect much more from you, dh.


“In retrospect and for future reference - should he have consented to the breathalyzer...”



Your son is honorable. Seriously. He made the correct decision. God knows.



“There are no good cops, there have never been any good cops.”


I recall hearing somewhere that a single eyewitness is considered sufficient for legal proof in many cases. So, as an individual who personally knows several cops and, including captains and sergeants, they would fit the description as a “good cop”, as they legitimately exercise their authority under the purview of the law while perpetually holding their brethren to the same standards they adhere to. Someone also told me that personal testimony is evidence, and is certainly sufficient to produce belief in its truth.

Blogger automatthew November 29, 2014 1:00 AM  

There be a whole lotta binary thinkin goin on in in this here thread.

I, for one, am eagerly anticipatin the works of Mr. Wright after he up an swallers the red pill.

Anonymous FP November 29, 2014 1:13 AM  

Map, I seem to be linking this video quite often lately... perhaps you should see the reasoning from a TN cop on large amounts of cash. Note the tattoo he has on his neck. Of course if I judge people based on their tats I'm a bigot or something. Sure seems to be an open gang banger attitude these days, just with badges and uniforms.

"why didn't you arrest him? Because he hadn't committed a criminal law."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMMZiyR-wxc

"I, for one, am eagerly anticipatin the works of Mr. Wright after he up an swallers the red pill."

I have a feeling you'll be waiting awhile.

Blogger Eric November 29, 2014 1:15 AM  

I mean really: in what legitimate circumstance does one need to carry that kind of money around? Are money orders or cashier checks really out of the question for any wholesale commercial operation?

It doesn't matter. The correct answer to "Why are you carrying a bunch of cash around?" is "Because I want to." It's not up to me to prove I'm not committing a crime - it's up to the state to prove I am.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 1:28 AM  

Josh, zen0, Ghost,

Look, I understand what you guys are saying and I fully agree with you that an asset forfeiture system is a horrific practice.

But you are so indignant over the abstract practice of asset forfeiture that you are not looking at the context.

First, this story is brought to you by the Washington Post. The Post is a left-wing newspaper, an organ of the Pravda network, like the New York Times or the LAT.

Second, why would the Post take an interest in a story like this? Because they are traditional defenders of property rights and the 4th Amendment? Of course not. It turns out minorities are involved in these kind of asset seizures. So once again we see that if these were primarily white people having their assets taken from then, then the Post wouldn't care. In fact, the Post's subtle suggestion is that whites are the ones who should be primarily targeted by this government activity and that non-whites should be scrupulously left alone.

Third, why do we see so many minorities being caught in such a dragnet? Lo and behold, it is because of some offbeat and unusual behavior. In this case, it's because they are carrying large amounts of cash for activities that don't require large amounts of cash. A Chinaman does not need $75,000 in cash to buy some restaurant. All he needs is some money order, cashier check, or, heck, even a personal check to do that deal.

Now, you guys may think that how or why he came by that money and what he is going to do with it is not anyone's business. And I would agree with you that that is true if we lived in a different kind of society. But we don't. In the real world, movements of large amounts of cash is known as "cash structuring." It is illegal precisely because it can be used to to thwart the tax authorities. White people do serious time for cash structuring, yet the Post doesn't champion that cause at all. It champions the cause of a different form of cash structuring precisely because some PC group falls prey to it.

One important conclusion that everyone here needs to grasp is championing the cause of getting the state's boot off of someone else's neck is not going to get the state's boot off of your neck. You haven't won anything for the cause of liberty because the state can draw unprincipled distinctions between those who do and do not deserve the boot. That is the nature of tyranny.

For example, how does a non-English speaking Asian raise $75,000 in cash? In fact, how many white people do you know capable of pulling that kind of money together? Well, they probably could, if, like the Asian, they can raise money for their restaurants by labeling themselves as a Minority Disadvantaged Business and tapping in to the free money spigot coming out of the Small Business Administration. They then use illegal immigrant labor on which they avoid paying any kind of taxes or other expenses, plus keeping two sets of books, and then squirrel away the whole ill-gotten largesse until they have a $75,000 bundle to wash, rinse and repeat at another location.

That Asian built his business on your back and he has the resources to hire an Asian lawyer who then argues, probably untruthfully, that he doesn't speak English and, therefore, should be excused of any wrongdoing. What privilege!! You can thank your anti-White government for that, since I doubt I could do the same in any Asian country in which I committed a crime.

The same goes for the rest of the Post's examples.

So what exactly have we won by actually thinking that the issues the Washington Post brings up are our issues as well?

Blogger John Wright November 29, 2014 1:45 AM  

Of the various comments that disagreed with me, most, if not all, spoke of the asset forfeiture laws which allow the police to steal property without due process, and, indeed, pays them for it.

No one is second to me in hating such laws and calling for their repeal, and for the hanging of the legislators who voted for them. That they corrupt the police department is beyond question.

But the cops are still putting their lives on the line for people like me every day.

So, bad laws, good men. And, yes, I will agree that the bad laws will eventually make the good men bad. But, for God's sake, put the burden where the burden rests.

Blogger John Wright November 29, 2014 1:51 AM  

@zen0
"This is the appeal to legalism for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees."

For me, a lawyer, to state what the law is, is an appeal to legalism? I was warning the barricks room lawyers out there that frelling with the police is unwise unless you actually know the law in your jurisdiction, otherwise you do not know what card he will play when you up the ante.

So, no, my dear blind man, I was the one in this conversation recommending humility and submission to lawful authority just as Saint Paul recommends, by trying to tear the scales from the eyes of those who think legalism will save them when dealing with men, such as policemen or lawyers, who live and breathe legalism every day of their lives.

Next time, please read what I said before commenting on my faith, or giving thanks how you are not as other men.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 2:03 AM  

Mr Wright,
We don't accept "we were just following orders" as sufficient excuse for behavior. As Vox pointed out, the good cops who speak up about this sort of thing are not cops for long.

That moment that you speak of, when the law turns good cops bad, well, that's exactly what we're complaining about happening. That moment has come when cops can rob you at gunpoint with absolute impunity.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 2:14 AM  

Furthermore, you guys are completely wrong about the Drug War. Drugs must always be a controlled substance. Why? Because people with heavy-duty drug habits cannot hold down jobs and cannot take care of themselves. Because drug addicts are not atomistic individuals, they have family members who must now bear the burden of taking care of their drug addicted relatives. If you watch a show called "Intervention" you will see the utter havoc a drug addict wreaks on her family.

Leftists who champion legalizing drugs, btw, know this and that is why they want drugs to be legalized. They know that drug addicts will destroy entire families and that families will demand all kinds of government programs just to take the pressure off of themselves. So while a libertardian is busy arguing for "freedumb" the cunning leftist is positioning another government gravy train.

The problem with the current drug war is that it is a nickel and dime operation that draws no distinction between foreign and citizenist elements. Foreign nationals found importing, manufacturing and distributing illegal drugs are to be dealt with by military means, not law enforcement. They are to be treated as enemy combatants and executed on sight. If foreign elements are distributing drugs at the behest of a national government, then such an action should be treated as an act of war...weapons of mass destruction can and should be involved.

If citizens are found to be importing, manufacturing and distributing drugs, then the legal boot of the state falls in proportion to the size of the operation. Some kid having some small amount of any drug is treated with kid gloves. A mass producer gets the dynamic entry with the SWAT team. This is just the opposite of how the drug war is conducted today...by design, I may add.

The last thing we need is drug legalization, where some Democrat extends a drug dealing franchise to another Democrat, so that Democrat can sell drugs to your kid, then tax the revenue to give to yet another Democrat who will create a drug treatment program for your drug-addicted kid.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 2:22 AM  

Map,
First, libertarians have been bitching about this issue for a lot longer than the Washington post. Reason magazine, the CATO institute, John Stossel. This isn't a lefty thing.
Second, is this a fourth amendment issue? Yes. Are whites being effected? Yes. Go to YouTube and search "breakfast in Collinsville."
You seem to be saying that since they do it to minorities more, hey, that's alright with you. You know they can seize houses, cars, boats, whatever the fuck they want, right?
Third, maybe he made the cash blowing sailors underneath an overpass for $5 a pop. It's none of the state's business. If they catch him in a crime, sure, take everything.

William Grigg said it best. "Every invasion of individual rights happens with the eager sport of people acting in the sincere and thoroughly mistaken confidence that whatthey permit the state to do to others will never be done to them."

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 2:25 AM  

Map,
Alcohol. Do you support prohibition of alcohol as well? Alcoholics can't hold down jobs. Most homeless people are alcoholics. Are you a consistent tyrant, or are some vices acceptable?

Blogger IM2L844 November 29, 2014 2:40 AM  

But, for God's sake, put the burden where the burden rests.

Easier said than done. Causality is legion. America has the best cops and politicians money can buy.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 3:11 AM  

Ghost,

And you don't see a problem with the Washington Post finally writing about this issue? You don't see some angle being invoked? Instead, you are so happy that finally a lamestream media outlet has seen to show concern for a cause that you hold dear. This has been a time-honored weakness of libertarianism for as long as I have known it.

The moment that some left-wing organization starts agreeing with me about something is the moment where I pause, take stock of everything being said, and carefully examine what the agreement is really based on. In this case, the Post is agreeing with you because precious minorities are being affected. Meaning, they don't want the program to become castrated along libertarian lines. They just want it tailored to exempt their favored groups. So, whites will continue to be affected while minorities are scrupulously protected. That is the goal.

Why would I want that result? Do you simply want libertarianism to increase along a Pareto optimality? Because that is what you are getting: a supposed overall increase in freedom with no account for its distribution. In other words, a shit sandwich for whites.

Your Griggs quote is apt, because it is precisely what leftists do successfully every day. They do that because they capture the state, reward their friends, punish their enemies, and, when their friends are unwittingly punished, they correct to make sure the just deserts fall where they are supposed to. All you libertarians are doing is making it easy for the leftists to pull this trick off.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 3:23 AM  

Ghost,

Alcohol is about ratios. The ratio of alcoholism to alcohol users is very small, something like 1 to 100. that means that for 100 million regular alcohol drinkers, alcoholism will be a problem for 1% of users. Furthermore, alcoholism is treated as a personal failing, at least according to Alcoholics Anonymous.

What's the ratio of heroin addicts to heroin users? What about meth, crack, cocaine, even pot? About 1 to 1. Addicts are users and users are addicts because the underlying chemical compund is addictive after one or two hits.

Again, it's not about regulating vices.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 3:28 AM  

I'm sorry. I missed the part in these comments where anyone said, "I want the Washington Post's secret agenda to succeed." Everyone on here is talking about civil asset forfeiture. What you're doing is the classic genetic fallacy, because the Post agrees with it, it must be wrong. I would argue that the only reason the Post is suddenly interested would be the hire of CATO fellow Radley Balko and his absolutely groundbreaking work.

Change it from wanton theft to wanton murder. Is the state executing white kids acceptable to you as long as they kill more minorities?

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 3:45 AM  

"Even pot."
Holy shit. Even the most propagandist driven research only comes back with a 7-9% addiction rate on pot. You're out of your mind if you think pot is anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol. I've had friends die from alcohol poisoning and liver failure. I've tried to overdose on pot myself in my youth. Not fucking possible.

Yeah, heroin is the devil. I don't want anyone to do heroin. But I'm not going to put a gun to a stranger's head in order to stop him from shooting up.

Crimes require victims. Vices are not crimes.

And you see no correlation between you giving the government the right to tell you what you're not allowed to ingest and Nanny Bloomberg saying you can't have salt, trans-fats, or large sodas?

Alcoholism destroys lives and is every bit the blight on society, even more so, than heroin. You aren't honest about your motivations. The only conclusion I can draw is the reason you want to keep drugs illegal is because you assume that minorities use more drugs than whites.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 3:54 AM  

By your own logic, the addiction rate on alcohol MUST be 1 to 1, because only users are addicts and only addicts use. The underlying ingredient is addictive after one or two shots.

Blogger SirThermite November 29, 2014 4:00 AM  

"to call such men thieves is slanderous...almost beyond forgiveness"

That an esteemed Christian author wrote this, whom I respect too much to even mention his name here, is immensely disappointing. Jesus said there was only one unforgivable sin. The act of calling corrupt Midwestern highway patrolman "highwayman" isn't remotely akin to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.. I'd argue that criticizing cops who've turned their back on the Constitution of their nation is also eminently more forgivable than what Peter did when he denied Christ three times. The fact that Jesus praised one Roman centurion for having incredible faith does not mean that all Roman military leaders (the police of their time) were absolved of their barbarism, just as the fact that David was a king after God's own heart did not prevent Biblical historians from noting King Ahab's thievery, murder, and promotion of idolatry.

Setting Biblical arguments aside, "Not All Cops Are Like That" is even less of a meaningful argument than "Not All Women Are Like That." Far more men reading this have benefited from the sacrifices made by a specific woman than the sacrifices made by a specific cop, but that doesn't prevent Vox or any of the rest of us concerned with the future Western civilization from criticizing how much damage women as a group have been permitted to cause. How much less should we pedestalize the corrupted institution of law enforcement?!

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 4:03 AM  

What secret agenda? The left's agenda has been out in the open for decades. And, no, you don't want to intentionally advance the Post's agenda, but you are doing so anyway. Yes, everyone here is talking about civil asset forfeiture...based on what the Post is writing. But, unlike us, the Post just wants civil asset forfeiture to end for minorities. That is, the whole article is a disparate impact article, not a condemnation of asset forfeiture itself. Did you read how the law professors they interviewed hedged their statements? How they carefully observed that everything looked "borderline unconstitutional?" Did the law professors strike you as appalled by the practice as you are? I didn't. You could feel the gears turning in their heads as they tried to condemn and maintain the program at the same time. Your Radley Balko is just a useful idiot working on the Post's agenda, so happy that his message finally broke into a mainstream outlet. hey, I bet Cato is so proud to have Ralph Nader on board.

For any kind of general, society-wide change, you need general society-wide suffering. Everyone if not most people need to eat the same shit sandwich in order for the distaste to stack so high that the whole rotten structure falls over. I guarantee you the Post is not working toward that goal. They don't want everyone to eat the shit sandwich. Just the white people.

It is not acceptable for the state to rob or murder anyone. That is not the point. The point is that you are not going to get the result that you expect.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 4:42 AM  

Ghost,

A 7-9% addiction rate for pot is still higher than the 1% addiction rate I cited for alcohol. What is not taken into account, however, is that legalized pot will lead to much stronger levels of THC, with much higher rates of addiction. Plus, pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs.

I am not belittling the dangerous effects of alcoholism. I am merely pointing out that 150 million people manage to drink alcohol on a regular basis without alcoholism, liver failure or poisoning. While alcoholics deserve all the treatment and sympathy they can get, alcohol simply is not the same problem as other drugs.

i don't want to point a gun at a heroin addict just because he's shooting up heroin. I have no problem, however, pointing guns at the foreign drug cartel that pushes that poison in the streets.

I am not talking about vices. I am talking about the act of pushing poison on the streets. Yes, whole categories of drugs are simply poisons because of the bare empirical fact that most self-medication is not successful. I would have no problem with the act of self-medicating if the results were not so pernicious.

You and I both know that Nanny Bloomberg attacked salts, trans-fats and big sodas because he wanted to remove the population that liked salts, trans-fats and big sodas out of New York. That was simply a variant of the northern California environmental regulation.

As far as ingesting stuff, you do realize that even Friedrich Hayek supported food purity laws, right? But this is a digression. In general, no, I don;t want the government involved in telling me what I can eat. But, again, we are talking about the bare empirical facts of what affects particular drugs have on people. Given those effects, a government restriction is reasonable.

I told you my motivations. I want drugs to remain illegal because the typical drugs that you want legalized are too destructive and addictive. I don't care what affect maintaining such illegality has on minorities or the elite.

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2014 5:14 AM  

@ map

Plus, pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs.

Unadulterated B.S. The whole concept of gateway drugs is as illogical as the concept of greenhouse gases leading to global warming. You want gateway drugs? why not caffeine, tobacco, ritalin, Prosac, Zoloft, Oxycodon et al?

.> I have no problem, however, pointing guns at the foreign drug cartel that pushes that poison in the streets.
AND
.> I want drugs to remain illegal because the typical drugs that you want legalized are too destructive and addictive.

Why do you think there are drug cartels, map? Could it be because making things illegal makes supplying it a lucrative business?

The government isn't against street drugs because they are bad for people and society in general. The government just wants its piece of the action.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 6:50 AM  

zen0,

Drug cartels exist to protect a monopoly by force. They do not exist because something is simply illegal. It's the monopoly that makes supplying drugs a lucrative business, not the legality of the product.

Incidentally, this is why legalizing drugs is not going to have the expected effect. While it is true that legalization will potentially bring more suppliers, those new suppliers will soon disappear from the market. First, big firms will not want the liability. That leaves small firms. These will be chased out by the drug gangs and other cartels by the threat of violence.

Thus, drug legalization will have the worst of all possible worlds: Expanded production; high prices; more addicts; more violence; and a completely impotent police force since solving murders is much harder than arresting someone for possession.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 6:54 AM  

zen0,

Gateway drugs are not illogical. The body gets used to a particular high and so heavier doses are needed to get the same high. Eventually, pot stops being effective.

Blogger RC November 29, 2014 8:44 AM  

"Again, while I think civil forfeiture is heinous. I do have to ask: why are these people carrying so much cash around? Look at the evidence provided by the Washington Post article: $17,000 for a bbq joint; $18,000 for buying a used car; $25,000 to pay off gambling debts; $75,000 to buy a chinese restaurant.

I mean really: in what legitimate circumstance does one need to carry that kind of money around? Are money orders or cashier checks really out of the question for any wholesale commercial operation?" - Map

Not that it's anyone's business what I do with my private property, but look up the payment requirements for government auctions. I attended one a few years ago that REQUIRED cash payment and the items on offer had values of from $10K to $50K, forcing me to carry a significant stash of cash across three states, along with the hundred other bidders, many of whom traveled significant distances. Based upon what I was carrying, I assume there was about $5M to $10M in cash at the auction.

In retrospect, I'm surprised that they didn't confiscate all cash from the losing bidders post-auction, or mark us for later traffic stops so they could confiscate the money.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 29, 2014 8:58 AM  

Map, you are right on! All your posts make sense. Thank you.

Pot is a gateway drug. People who are weak and need highs start with weed. Weed is prevalent at most highschool parties. Pot begins not to be sufficient, then they search for a greater high. The body always adjusts to the chemical; then one needs more and more.

Map is also right hard drugs are 1:1. There is no such thing as a "casual" heroin user. It becomes a fix. One can be a casual drinker of alcholol but no one can be a casual meth user, herion user. There are exceptions but they are rare. Exceptions don't make the case. The majority of the Bell Curve does.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 10:39 AM  

"Pot is a gateway drug."

I'm sorry, I thought I was dealing with a serious person. You will not find very many, if any, people who started with marijuana. It's always alcohol or cigarettes. But you know this. You'd rather be disingenuous.

As to the repeated fallacy of "Washington post supports it, it must be wrong," it's a goddam logical fallacy for a reason. But, you just said that pot is a gateway drug that is more addictive than alcohol (even giving it the 1 to 1 addict: user ratio). Again, you're not a serious person. For those of you playing along at home, I said that the most propagandist research only comes back 7-9% addiction rate, and map took that as the actual addiction rate. Not too mention the fact that there is no scientific proof of any physical addiction associated with weed; the 7-9% were only psychologically addicted. Essentially, they really liked it and didn't want to quit, but they don't HAVE to keep using. Like an alcoholic.

Pot is a gateway drug. Jesus, man. I don't even think DARE pushes that nonsense anymore.

Anonymous Daniel Boone November 29, 2014 12:27 PM  

Maier: "A thinking peace officer would have pulled up a good distance away and used a bullhorn to say 'Attention, kid. Please move very slowly and put the gun on the ground right now.'"

In 2001 a black college kid shot a 13 year old white kid in the back with a "toy gun" (aka BB gun) and killed him. The local papers called it a "prank drive-by".

In 2002 Cleveland changed its laws. "Firearms" now include gas operated guns (e.g. "toy guns").

Anonymous Herr Hitler November 29, 2014 1:13 PM  

Ghost: "Mr Wright, We don't accept 'we were just following orders' as sufficient excuse for behavior."

Ding! Ding! Ding! Argumentum ad Hitlerum! You win!

And where did Herr Wright say that it is "sufficient" to follow orders? That quote must have slipped past me.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 2:55 PM  

"So, bad laws, good men."

Right there. It wasn't a direct quote because I wasn't quoting him. Good men don't enforce bad laws. He was arguing implicitly that the cops don't have a choice, they're just enforcing the bad laws because it's their job. They may not be evil, but they sure as shit ain't righteous or just.

If that's what you consider argumentum ad hitlerum, that's fine with me. Doesn't make what I said any less true. We don't accept "just following orders" as sufficient excuse for immoral behaviors.

Unless you think that words on paper written by corrupt politicians are what defines morality. In which case, we won't convince each other of anything.

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 3:15 PM  

RC,

"Not that it's anyone's business what I do with my private property, but look up the payment requirements for government auctions. I attended one a few years ago that REQUIRED cash payment and the items on offer had values of from $10K to $50K, forcing me to carry a significant stash of cash across three states, along with the hundred other bidders, many of whom traveled significant distances. Based upon what I was carrying, I assume there was about $5M to $10M in cash at the auction."

Ok...here are the payment terms of a government auction:

http://www.treasury.gov/auctions/irs/enco_auto_7633.htm

"All payments must be by cash, certified check, cashier´s or treasurer´s check or by a United States postal, bank, express, or telegraph money order. Make check or money order payable to the United States Treasury."

Anonymous map November 29, 2014 3:38 PM  

Ghost,

Cigarettes don't get you high. In fact, cigarettes have no mind-altering properties at all. While addictive, a cigarette smoker can hold down a complex, full-time job, earn a living, raise a family and never become a burden on anyone as a result of his smoking.

Alcohol doesn't cause "highs." It is a depressant. So, no, if people are looking for that pleasant up sensation then they are going to be looking a marijuana and above.

I don't understand why you are so naive about the Washington Post and other liberal sources. The genetic fallacy really only applies in some non-iterative game where the interlocutor's background is either not known or irrelevant. It does not apply to this situation where a an entity has been a known liar for decades. Sure, they may be right, but they are certainly not credible.

The Post article is structured in a way to be interpreted by two types of audiences. The libertarian will hone in on the fact of civil asset forfeiture and not go beyond that. The leftist will hone in on the great injustice once again being done to minorities by this evil country called America. Now, look at the people in power capable of changing this policy. Are they mostly libertarians or are they mostly leftists? They are leftists. Given that, how do you expect the left to solve this problem? Exempt minorities, go after whites.

Would you expect a different outcome.

Blogger RC November 29, 2014 7:00 PM  

"All payments must be by cash, certified check, cashier´s or treasurer´s check or by a United States postal, bank, express, or telegraph money order. Make check or money order payable to the United States Treasury." - Map

Yes Map but remember that it's an auction, payment due at time of auction. Please tell me just how you'd get a money order when you don't know what the purchase price will be. All the winners at the auction I attended paid in cash.

Blogger RBooster Man November 29, 2014 7:33 PM  

I doubt wheeler understands the concept of the Mandate of Heaven.

Blogger Ghost November 29, 2014 11:26 PM  

Again, map, I see that you aren't serious. We spoke of drugs, you moved the goal posts to only these certain drugs that conveniently fit your narrative. To exclude alcohol from your controlled substance ban and include marijuana is insanity. Marijuana actually has medical benefits, and, oh yeah, has never killed anyone in the history of ever.

You can keep arguing against the Washington post. I've pointed out other publications like reason. National review has covered this. The blaze. You keep arguing against the Post. The adults are going to keep arguing against the policy.

Anonymous map November 30, 2014 1:00 AM  

Ghost,

What goalposts am I moving? You have 150 million people in the US alone that consume copious amounts of alcohol on a semi-regular basis without becoming alcoholics. That is a bare empirical fact. Yes, alcoholism is a dangerous habit, but it does not change the fact that 99 out of 100 people manage to be drinkers without becoming alcoholics. Alcoholism is a small problem. Why, then, should it be treated as a controlled substance?

Alcoholism is primarily a personal deficiency of the alcoholic, not a chemical dependency.

Marijuana, on the other hand, is a dangerous collection of 2,000 unbalanced chemicals that enter the body through a dangerous medium (smoking.) It has no medicinal value, is highly addictive, is a mind-altering drug and we certainly don't need to add marijuana addiction to the population of alcoholics.

I understand that Reason, the Blaze and National Review covered this topic. What makes the Posts article on this matter different is that the Post is read by the DC elite while the other publications are marginal and disreputable. And the take that the post took on the matter is the undue burden that such laws impose on minorities, So, what are they asking for? A repeal of asset forfeiture? No. An exemption of the law's application against minorities.

Why can't you see that?

Anonymous map November 30, 2014 3:40 AM  

RC,

Well you would know your maximum bid.

Blogger Ghost November 30, 2014 1:18 PM  

According to the national institute of health, 7-9% of drinkers have an "alcohol use problem." The same NIH says that marijuana is about 7-9% addictive (meaning, "marijuana use problem.") AND that same NIH says that marijuana has medicinal properties. Marijuana has been proven to slow the growth of cancer cells, relieve chronic pain, and...

You know what? That there shows how unserious you are. I found this info with one Google search. You're spouting out propaganda that you can't even remember straight. Educate yourself on an issue before making yourself look like a complete fucking idiot. No medicinal value. For the love of Christ.

You know what? Show me the quote from the post that says they want civil asset forfeiture only for whites, or shut the fuck up already. No one here is arguing for this secret agenda of post's except for you. You are the only one defending legal thievery with, "but they do it more to minorities!" They shouldn't do it, period.

The only legislation to remove this policy (from rand Paul) didn't have an exemption clause for whites. Seriously, you've made some wildly bullshit claims on this board. Prove that alcoholism isn't the exact same as marijuana "addiction" (which has NO withdrawal symptoms like alcohol), prove that marijuana isn't medicinal (which thousands and thousands of doctors have already proven otherwise) and prove that the post only wants whites getting robbed.

You're not a serious person. And this debate is no longer fun.

Anonymous map November 30, 2014 3:24 PM  

Ghost,

The NIH is a political organization, not a scientific one. The same people who are arguing how wonderful and healthy marijuana is are the same people who demonize cigarettes and smoking. This is purely a left-wing/right-wing issue.

I support getting rid of asset forfeiture. I support arresting police officers and fining departments for committing this obvious theft. I support Rand Paul's legislation.

I also live in the real world. Paul's legislation will go nowhere. The Post's publicizing this problem is signaling to the elites to cool off on the minorities. No, you do not need explicitly anti-white laws to create an anti-white culture.

Why do you not understand this?

Blogger Ghost November 30, 2014 4:34 PM  

Who do you think is telling you that marijuana is dangerous, addictive, and leads to harder drugs? Why, that wouldn't be political organizations with political agendas, would they? Of course they are. But you aren't being serious or honest. There have been numerous studies, all widely available on the web, which point to the medical benefits of marijuana. It stops seizures bright on by epilepsy, reduces the effects of cerebral palsy, increases the appetite and reduces the nausea in chemo patients, relieve chronic pain, slows and even reduces the growth of cancer cells. Should I go on?

Your evidence that it has no medical benefits is, what, exactly?

You spent the better part of two days straw manning the post's secret motivation to only have the whites robbed by police, also with no citation.

Again, you are an unserious debater.

You say you agree that it should be ended, but again, not before arguing that out should be continued under Piers Morgan style "why does anyone need..."

"Why can't you understand that?" I understand it. It's just entirely irrelevant. It had nothing to do with anything and was only introduced to defend asset forfeiture in the first place.

I understand that you either have no understanding of what you're talking about (as demonstrated by the marijuana/alcohol discussion) or that you are an entirely unserious person (as demonstrated by your "I'm okay with it/I'm against it" posturing). Either way, the only benefit to responding to you at this point is that debate is my drug of choice. Boring or not, it gets me high.

Anonymous Joe Friday November 30, 2014 8:11 PM  

"How much less should we pedestalize the corrupted institution of law enforcement?!"

Law enforcement has corruption, but as an institution it is not inherently corrupt.

Anonymous map December 01, 2014 2:49 AM  

Ghost,

You are still not getting it. I am tired of reading these left-wing newspapers and seeing that the only time any public policy is bad is when there is a pattern of harm against minorities. The Washington Post does not regard asset forfeiture as illegitimate because it is obvious theft of property. It regards it as illegitimate because it takes the property of minorities. That is why this story is on the Post's radar in the first place.

In fact, they are so intent on protecting these member of the Democrat coalition that they don't even bother looking for run-of-the-mill minorities caught up in these bad circumstances. Instead, you get minorities carrying large sums of cash to do things that seem off or unnecessary.

You are so giddy over seeing a libertarian topic finally reaching the mainstream that you have failed to ignore the very content of the article you're citing.

You are calling me unserious about the whole alcohol/marijuana thing but you don't seem to see that you have something in common with these Leftists: they, too, want to legalize drugs, including marijuana. Do you think they are doing so because they share your concern over freedom and leaving everyone alone? Or, do they have other agendas?

You are part of the "Let Us Be" party. That's LUBE Party for short, you know.



Blogger JaimeInTexas December 01, 2014 11:18 AM  

Marijuana is call the gateway drug because it is the lesser of the illegal drugs. Make cigarettes/nicotine illegal and it will become the new gateway drug.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts