I would like to take this publisher on for a second or two. Some of what is said is true, but his conclusions and context are at times completely failing to take hold of the real world as he aptly puts it in his flyer.
My Commentary will be in blue, italicized and underlined ,and his commentary from the flyer will remain in black.
When should you shoot a Cop?
That question, even without an answer, makes most "law-abiding taxpayers" go into knee-jerk conniptions.
(Why use the label “law-abiding taxpayers”, because he is labeling the newest bunch of Americans who have joined in with the ideas broadcast by the main stream media. Trying to cajole us into thinking that we, who still work and pay taxes are conditioned to not shoot looters, thieves and their ilk when we encounter them in our homes or out in public, when someone’s life is threatened with deadly force by some nefarious type. He is speaking down to us, he believes we are why he is somehow suffering unjustly, because of us.)
The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist "law enforcement."
(In other words we are mindless followers, when in fact he is the mindless one.)
In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
(He assumes that we are not in America, that we do not act to correct bad laws or bad enforcement of the laws or the actions we take to correct bad laws passed by legislative or executive offices anywhere in the United States ever, really?)
In an ideal word, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified.
(I can’t say it any clearer than this, if he’s a bad police officer, we will deal with him and the system that allowed him to rise to level where he could become a tyrant with his police power.)
In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of "law enforcement," than has been committed in spite of it.
(Obviously, he has had a hard time, in his life to date to make such a claim. Most “law-abiding taxpayers”, only encounter the police officers when someone of a nefarious type interacts with us, the average American.)
To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history.
(Again, always using a failed state to compare us to, and communists too. We are not those failed states, of which by the way were always extremist governments, not the type we have and protect and defend.)
Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, "When should you shoot a cop?" Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of "law enforcement."
(Again, most of these atrocities were conducted and enforced by extremist in government who seized power away from the people, and this is not America he is using as an example, why not you ask? Because he can state no historical fact that doesn’t involve radicals and extremist in government using government as a weapon against the people whom it is supposed to protect.)
And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE "cop-killers" around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
(Perhaps he needs to change the phrase “cop-killers” to “radical extremists”, then he would make more sense with his arguments.)
People don't mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN "country", their OWN "government", and their OWN "law enforcers", in any sort of objective way.
(I don’t see it that way, we have in the last two years seen the public gather together to question in very large and loud groups, what the government was doing that they did not like or want the government (politicians) to do, and a record breaking election cycle refuting the actions of a far left governing body.)
Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. "patriotism"),
(By the way don’t fall for this bland statement, Patriotism is not blind loyalty. In the last two years we have seen both the Democrats and Republicans fail us, and have punished both in elections. For the record, the D’s and R’s don’t mean anything to us anymore if we are true to our principles and values. I see in fact that it is the publisher of this document who is blindly following failed examples in history and trying desperately to convince you that his way is the right way, just like Hitler and all of the other examples he stated above.)
and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting "law enforcement " is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can't even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it.
(Only in this age can we really see what is happening in real time elsewhere in the world and look on seeing the ravages of radical extremism he is extolling.)
It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
(Again this is a testament that he is suffering in some way and wants you to say it’s okay to believe as he does. His twisted view of this matter shows he cannot provide an American with any real example from America, only from extremist revolutions of the past, very unlike our own from Great Britain.)
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about "working within the system"-the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that "the system" will, sooner or later, provide justice.
( As long as you remember that you are the system here in America, not the politicians, but you the voting American. This is a representative form of Democracy, called a republic, where we all have a voice and the ability to correct a mistake at the polls. Not using violent, destructive actions or creating discontent between differing types of people like the current Democratic party leaders and Unions are trying to do today in America.)
The last thing they want to consider is that they should "illegally" resist - that if they want to achieve justice, they must become "criminals" and "terrorists," which is what anyone who resists "legal" justice is automatically labeled.
( Strange, Isn’t that what the main stream media and the Democratic party has done to the Tea Party movement in America! Called them terrorists, criminals, a fake grass roots movement, funded by extremist right wing radicals. What a shame he was not involved in a real grass roots movement like the Tea Party, but that will have to wait until he has finished years of therapy I guess.)
But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so "illegally"- i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
( Only in violent, radical revolutions such as he is aware of, minus of course our very own revolution parting ways with England to become America.)
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any "law" they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it's called "law", they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the "law-makers" or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as "law", then by definition it is up the "law-breakers" to combat tyranny.
( Here he should substitute “radicals in government for “law-makers” and “government regulators” for “hired thugs” as well as “Patriots” for “law-breakers”, but doesn’t because of his twisted view of the world’s history.)
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is fascist "war on drugs," the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of "security" (e.g., at airports, "border checkpoints: that aren't even at the border, "sobriety checkpoints," and so on), or anything else.
( Remember now that he is talking about “progressives” or “liberals” here and the acts they passed into law in the last 20 years or so, basically is entire life on earth, but not mine or many other long lived and world traveled Americans.)
Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it's wrong for cops to do these things, doesn't that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions?
( He’s mixing apples and oranges, police officers are not progressives or liberals using the force of government like a gun against you. They too have the voice as you and I do, to vote out of office those who fear free Americans, and the free market capitalist system will limit their power as the U.S. Constitution does for a good reason...)
Of course, state mercenaries don't take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently.
( Again, mixing apple and oranges. He should substitute state mercenaries with progressives here but does not.)
If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot.
( Only progressives and liberals would make the mistake he’s made here. If you are a violent person you would have this view of the law. Common law, not private laws which have been legislated into being by the Liberals and Progressives in government today.)
If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it "legally" or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can't resist a cop "just a little" and get away with it. He will always call more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
( Real violence, will result in real violence, epic! Why not just nuke all of America Dude! Get real, most of the problems we have in America today can be fixed with an educated electorate and a few election cycles, as it has been done here in America for over 235 years now. It doesn’t require violent revolution.)
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET "law enforcers" have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them.
( Obviously, not a well-balanced argument for even most criminals in society today, this guy is way out there. First the government will have to make virtually every man women and child a criminal before it can get this bad unless you are breaking the common law to start with you would never have consider his basic logic…)
(Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it's against the law for you to do anything to stop him.
( This is why we cannot allow Progressive’s to gain power in America. He is misinformed and twisting the argument. Judges can exert much power in our system of government just a bad politicians can. He should be upset as would you or me if our home was invaded by the police without proper cause. I would think that the police would very embarrassed upon discovering the home was not the right one. Help the police so that they can find the real criminals. The Officer’s I’ve known came back to repair the damage done to gain entry to the homes they have mistakenly entered. The lesson learned here is know who your voting for when you place someone in an office of government.)
Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to "break the law," and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of "government" agents.
( Again mixing apple and oranges, Yes the Fourth Amendment does provide for as he says, but if you elect the wrong type of people to public office you have a chance to correct it without the radical position he proposes. National Elections occur every two years, so with in four years you can change over 2/3rds of the 545 representatives.)
In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The messages from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: "We don't have the right to invade your home without probable cause .... but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try."
(Now for the big wrap up, let’s attack the system that allows him the freedom to say all these things and incite radical violent revolution in America. He re we go.)
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? "You have the right to say what you want but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us." (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. "Department of Justice.") "You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you." (Ask randy weaver and the Branch Dividians about that one.) "you have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a "plea agreement"), you can't do a thing about it." What good is a "right" - what does the term "right" even mean - if you have an obligation to allow the jackboots to violate your so-called "rights"? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.
( This is a very angry individual, he has little or no respect for the welfare or lively hoods of others which is easy to read in this last paragraph here. He wants you to believe all to evil that has taken place is the fault of the Bankers, the Capitalist, the well off in America. He’s angry that he has not found his special purpose in life that doesn’t include harming others. He is showing signs of liberalism a mental disorder diagnosed by clinical psychologists. The problem is he cannot afford the visits to the doctor so instead he has chosen to assault us with his dementia. I am truly sorry for his condition but can offer him no help but to pray for him. Of course that would require me to pray and the ACLU refuses to allow it. So I guess he’s out of luck.)
To be blunt, if you have the right to do "A", it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing "A" - even if he has a badge and a politician's scribble ("law") on his side -- you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right.
( That is not an unalienable right. God gives you your unalienable rights, not man as he is trying to state. You still must obey the laws of men. If you don’t you will suffer for it, which it appears he has in the past if not now.)
If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL "government" agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL "government" agents who try to disarm you.
( Again he is trying to tell you that man’s law is higher than Gods law, Thou Shalt Not Kill. He is wrong again. Not because I believe in God and he doesn’t but because he would incite violence and harm to others which is not his unalienable right. It’s called murder! And we punish those who commit this crime in our courts daily.)
If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL "government" agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be "law-abiding" don't like to hear this, and don't like to think about this, but what's the alternative?
(Now that is a simple question that can be answered simply, vote out those who would do you harm, and legislate better laws, common laws, not private laws. There is a huge difference between these two types of laws. Research it for yourselves to see why.)
If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice -- even if the injustice is called the "law" - that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow "government" agents to do absolutely anything they want to you , your home, your family, and so on.
(What he is describing is his bad results in a court of law, where he has to present real evidence of a crime committed against him in order to gain relief under the law, common law as it is written in the United States Constitution and the Federalist Papers from our founding fathers.)
Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist "government" attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
(Well actually he is right about there are only two choices, but it’s is conclusions about what those choices are. Yes you can lie down and become a slave to tyranny or die on your feet in opposition, that’s called being a patriot if your defending the weak and infirm, that is one choice. The second is to act to cast off a government that does not represent you anymore, and a vehicle created by our founding fathers exists today to accomplish this, it’s called an ELECTION.)
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called "government" is usually very hazardous to one's health.
(Only if your course is one of violence. Just remember what he said earlier who is the loudest and longest is not always right. “Small men cast tall shadows, just as the Sun sets on them.” It’s from Confucius. )
But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which in large part to the fact that most people answer "never" to the question of "When should you shoot a cop?" The correct answer is: When evil is "legal," become a criminal.
(All that is needed is for good men to do nothing for evil to spread, but good men do not let evil pass without acting to stop it. But I must again disagree with his conclusion. When power has corrupted the representative body it can be cast off without violence. Courage is acting even though you fear for your life to defend what is good and right and peaceful, not being filled with hate, as he has indicated in his rhetoric. That is called being a Hero. Only through extremism can one achieve a state where "evil is legal". That has been witnessed in history, which is what he is twisting here, trying to get you to believe that we "Americans", are now extremists of his nature and thus should act out as terrorists within our own country to bring it down.)
When oppression is enacted as "law," become a "law-breaker." When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.
(Again, apple and oranges being compared. Question with bold authority, demand answers, and vote with knowledge of whom is offering themselves to publicly serve you as a representative. Know what you believe in, know good from evil. Believe in yourself and be self-reliant, and self-sufficient. This is the point he has not made or learned even yet in his life. I hope that someday he will know that what he has done here is shown how foolish and foolhardy he has been.)
The next time you hear of a police officer being killed "in the line of duty," take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the "law enforcer" was the bad guy and the "cop killer" was the good guy.
( Evil exists in hearts of men when he covets another’s.)
As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
(This was the end of the flyer. Never could he arrive at a worse conclusion than this. This is an awful misinterpretation of past failed violent overthrows of governments else where in the world, not in America, a contrived statement of a demented and tortured soul, who desperately wants help. What he said in his last sentence is wholly wrong, and evil. He is unwilling to work to achieve his dreams so he wants you to steal them from someone else, By Killing those who are charged to protect us. This is a very serious thing and a capital crime to commit. To incite people to do it for him, he is a base coward.)
I am Sorry to report that the main stream media has not challenged this todate. It once again leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that again the progressive media has shown it petchant for destruction, misinformation, and propaganda. It is no longer the fourth estate of America. It has lessened it'self to a far darker purpose. I can only pray that American's will see through the sea of twisted and tilted information presented by the new organization we once trusted to act a protectors of the people.
This is the problem of our age, the uneducated, the lazy, the unwilling, trying to loot from the coffers of others what they cannot bring themselves to come by honestly. Having elected like kinds to the highest office’s in the land who wish to use government as force like a weapon to take from those who will not surrender it freely. They have elected themselves a TYRANNT and want us to help them cause our own downfall.
Our next Presidential Election is our only chance to turn this country back in the right direction. Too do this it will cost many of us everything we have and some our lives need be, but we cannot lie down in the face of evil, which the publisher of this flyer has demonstrated is rearing its ugly head in America today.
If we have the will, if we stand our ground and vote our values and principals and question with boldness, demanding answers we will be made stronger for it as a nation and as a people. We will for at least another six generations survive as the greatest Nation on Earth and continue to be Bless by God. We must remember history to prevent it repetition.
Our founding fathers provided us with a way to correct our electoral mistakes and we will use it to show the whole world that freedom and liberty are greatest gift that GOD has blessed us with, and will bring the world together as never before. We can be the shining city on the hill once again, but it will take conviction, boldness and truth. God Bless America.
