The "Great" Divide

As so many have noticed, there is a Great Divide in America- and I don't mean the Rocky Mountains.

It's a divide between individuals who see themselves as part of a particular group and those who see themselves as part of a different group.

But, the "Great" divide isn't the divisions that we are encouraged to see. It isn't between "Black" or "White" or Hispanic. Not between "immigrant" and "citizen". Not even between "liberal" and "conservative".

 Nope. It's strictly between liberty and State.

Those who support the State, or somehow believe a State enables liberty, are destroying liberty. Actively. Not simply by giving power and comfort to the enemy of liberty, but by marginalizing those actually advocating and supporting liberty.

Supporting the State includes supporting cops, troops, a favorite politician, and even the Constitution (as anything more than an illustration of how illegal the federal government has become by its own rules).

Supporting the State doesn't just mean supporting the individual rights of those people who work for the State- nothing, not even joining the State, can make rights "go away". Supporting the State to the detriment of liberty means saying those people are "good" even if they refuse to walk away from the "job".

Supporting the State means supporting the Constitution in spite of everything wrong with it by pretending there is no way to deal with other individuals which could be better.

Supporting the State means saying "just obey the law", when you know- you KNOW- the "law" is often completely evil and obeying it, when not looking down the barrel of a gun, is wrong.

Supporting the State means being so anxious to not appear to be supporting a freelance thug that you throw your support and advocacy behind a State-employed thug. Forgetting it is possible for both to be parasitic vermin.

Some people believe they can straddle the divide, hopping awkwardly back and forth as the situation merits. It just doesn't work that way. You never know when the music will stop and you are stuck where you stand. Choose wisely. Choose liberty.

.

Recoiling from Liberty

It is sad when I see people who used to be firm advocates of Rightful Liberty backing away.

I understand it is hard to be seen as "radical", and maybe this is part of it. It can be uncomfortable pointing out terrible things that are highly popular. You don't want to be seen as supporting bad guys.

I know I may hold some blame.

Others, I suspect, are allowing themselves to get pulled into some type of government job or entitlement, and are softening their views to accommodate their new life. You have to do what you have to do, but that's only more reason to refuse to even consider working for the bad guys.

Whatever the cause, I hope they realize their mistake before they have done things which can't be taken back.

.

Merry Christmas, etc.

Go read a random old post to find something embarrassing I've said in the past if you simply must be reading blogs today.

Best wishes to you and yours!

.

Could a time traveler change our future?

In my naivety I used to believe a time traveler could change the future- his past- by warning people of the path they were on. Recent events have destroyed this assurance.

Just imagine a time traveler going back to 1930s Germany, warning the people (without actually revealing he came from the future) about Hitler and his Brownshirts. After all, they could see with their own eyes the events happening around them, and should be able to figure out the time traveler's warnings are at least plausible. They could choose to change direction and stop worshiping the Nazi enforcers. Right?

I'm not so sure anymore.

Imagine a time traveler from the mid-2020s or so showing up today to warn people about the future of America. Everyone sees what is happening and can see for themselves- if they choose to do so- what police have become. No one would believe a person has actually come from the future to warn them (well, maybe if he's "John Titor") so he probably shouldn't tell them that part, but they should still be able to recognize the current path for what it is and see where it leads- especially with a warning. If they could just stop fluffing badges for a moment and get up off their knees to look around and see where it's all heading. Or, you'd think they could.

But, I believe now they'd just squeeze their eyes shut and "insult" the time traveler for "hating cops", which, due to his past, of course he would. I can hear them crowing: what will you do if you're ever in trouble and need to call a Brownshirt to come save you? Oops, I mean, call a cop.

I suspect, now, that if a time traveler went even further and assassinated Hitler before he could do any real harm, the only effect would be to elevate the dead politician to the status of a hero in the minds of the vast majority- openly and proudly celebrated even today. Think of JFK. People would probably embrace his "vision" even more tightly, no matter how suicidal, to honor his memory.

The sad thing is, it doesn't take a time traveler to see where this train leads. I've done all I can. I have tried to warn people because I care- not only for my own future and the future of my kids, but even for all those who hate me for telling the truth about cops.

Maybe something will happen to change what seems inevitable. I sure hope so. I do believe that after "the inevitable" comes to pass, and implodes, a much freer, brighter future awaits. Liberty does seem to increase over the long term, even considering the painful and tragic blips where it is rolled back temporarily. I just hate to think people are so stupid they insist on going through the bad to get to the good, when the bad times approaching are so avoidable. So many won't make it out the other side. If people will just stop to observe and think... I am disappointed in people right now.

I will try to stop focusing so much on cops. You have all the information you need, already. Absorb it, or ridicule it. Believe me, or hate me. Don't be surprised a few years down the road when you suddenly realize you were warned while you had the power to act and change course in your circle of influence, and you chose instead to shine those badges and point out the "good cops" you've known and loved. Keep licking that hand; you'll sorely regret it. Probably sooner than later.

.

Justice system should not be monopoly

Justice system should not be monopoly

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 21, 2014)


A horrific local crime has again shown the folly of allowing a monopoly on providing the service of justice. A monopoly which arose, not by providing a superior service no one could beat, but imposed through destructive laws.

A monopoly in the free market, even one which provides an exceptionally superior service or product, is always temporary. As soon as someone believes they can do it better, spurred on by the potential profits, they will try, and no one can prohibit their attempt.

True monopolies can only survive when enforced by "laws" which forbid- or heavily regulate- competition. An enforced monopoly never results in the best you can get for your money. When such a monopoly administers something as crucial as justice, it is especially tragic.

Maybe police employees really are the most qualified to investigate and try to solve crimes, but to enforce made up rules granting them monopoly status over an investigation helps no one but themselves. Well, and perhaps the more than 30% of murderers who are never caught.

You might point out that private investigators exist, but the truth is they are not really allowed to compete with the police; only to supplement them while remaining subservient. They are supposed to defer to the police and are forced to either dig up information the police have not found first and squirreled away, or beg the police for scraps. They are always expected to hand over, to the officials, anything they find. If a private investigator discovered critical evidence and refused to share the new data with the police, he would probably be charged with a crime. When police do the same thing, people think it's normal.

Independent individuals who discover evidence missed by the "professionals" are eyed with suspicion, and are required to hand over all evidence to the police, who act, not as a voluntary centralized clearinghouse, but as a jealous miser, insisting no one else has the right to the information they hold for themselves. If finding those responsible were the highest priority, this wouldn't be the way to go about it.

Police and government officials also assert they are the only proper ones to release information or to speak publicly about a case.

When a group claims exclusive authority over some necessary service, efficiency is compromised, delays result, and people suffer. If justice, whatever you believe justice to be, were the real goal, you would have as many different investigations going on, and sharing information, as there were people interested in solving the case. No one would be allowed to monopolize the investigation to the detriment of truth and justice.

.

The Police State death spiral

Most of the justifications for tolerating the existence of cops only exist because of cops. Because cops enforce counterfeit "laws" there is more crime and regular people find it harder to be properly armed at all times like they have the right to be.

A huge factor in the justification of cops is prohibition. Enforcing anti-drug laws is just plain evil, even if drugs can harm you when abused. Prohibition destroys more lives than drugs ever have. Each day that goes by without rejecting the Stupid and Evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is another day with more deaths and disasters directly attributable to it- and more power for The State.

No crooked politician would even bother proposing anti-drug laws without knowing he has a willing thug army at his disposal to enforce any nasty liberty-violating counterfeit "law" he dreams up. So, the existence of cops perpetuates prohibition by giving them busy work to justify their "job". It's a sick cycle.

If being a cop is "honorable", then "honor" has no meaning, and anyone, committing any act, could be called "honorable" with a straight face.

I warn people because I care. I would do the same if I saw you petting a rabid hyena. If you don't want to listen, and insist on supporting cops in spite of everything, that's your business. I'll try to not say "I told you so"- but I'd much rather you avoided being hurt altogether. Because I really do care and I can't watch you heading straight for disaster without speaking up. Your peril causes me distress even as you deny it.

.

Needing to be "helped" by cops?

(Previously posted on Patreon)

In recent days the notion that cops "help" people (other than politicians who pay them) has reared its head over and over again.

This comes in two forms, depending on how hate-filled the statist uttering the phrase might be: "I hope you never need to call the police to help you" or "I hope when you call the cops they don't come save your worthless...."

Cops don't help. Cops can't help.

I realize there are some situations where you are pretty much forced to call them to keep from getting in deeper "legal" trouble. I hope if this happens you survive their "help"- it certainly isn't a given that you will. In many cases it's probably still better to take your chances with not calling them- but that determination is up to you. 

Any other situation a cop might be of any sort of "help" in, you would be better served by someone not a cop. Need armed support? A friend who knows you is less likely to arrive and immediately mistakenly shoot you. 

Catch a burglar in your house? I generally think of the phrase "Shoot, shovel, and shut up". Maybe there are better ways to handle that. But, being there when the cops show up to haul off the thief is probably pretty risky. And, ignoring the fact that cops are also thieves- traffic fines, tax-financed paychecks, code enforcement, etc., etc.- just means you are calling in one gang of thieves to deal with another thief. 

Your child get kidnapped? You're probably better off posting a notice on social media- the cops might find a body, but thousands of eyes have a better chance of finding a live kid. 

Angry mobs of stupid and violent people smashing, burning, and looting? Look to the L.A. riots and Ferguson, MO to see the cowardly uselessness of cops against actual danger. Instead, grab some willing friends, load up your defensive rifles, and protect your own property if you want it to survive. Of course, cops aren't usually afraid of molesting honest people protecting their own property, so you'll still face risk- but the cops aren't there to help you, but only enforce "laws". 

There is really no situation where cops are there to "help"- it simply isn't their job or their inclination to do so. 

In fact, there is no situation so dire that it can't be made much, much worse by inviting a cop to join in. 

You do what you think is best, but if you still believe cops are the good guys, you are in for a painful wake-up call.

.

Dead cops

The enemy (cop killer) of my enemy (cops) isn't necessarily my friend. That much should be obvious to anyone.

However, the mere fact of being targeted doesn't magically transform the cops into my friends, either.

Cops are still the enemy, only because they have presented themselves as such, and worked hard to prove it. We should believe them.

Cops are where the boot heel meets the face. They are the only real threat to the exercise of Rightful Liberty in America today.

Bad guys kill other bad guys. It happens all the time. And it never changes the dead bad guy into a hero.

.

"If Churches paid taxes..."

Happy Winter Solstice!

Let the festivities begin!

I have seen this image making the rounds. It is disgusting in its assumptions.



I'm an atheist, so I have no love for churches and the way they play into people's foolish wishful thinking- however, I am also an anarchist and I don't want ANYONE "paying taxes" for any reason, ever.

It's a matter of voluntary versus coercion.

People aren't forced to give money to churches, but "taxation" always comes at the barrel of a gun. Churches actually do more good for poor people than "welfare" ever has, and giving the State more money is never a good idea.

I see what the local churches do for people in need. I see the food banks and the clothes "closets" and have seen preachers pay for hotel rooms for homeless, stinky men. I see preachers with second jobs, because they aren't paid enough by their church to survive.

I know some people look at the flashy exceptions- the rich churches with lavish furnishings and vast amounts of property, and preachers in rich suits and luxury cars- the ones who are famous and on TV... but those are truly the exceptions. And, using the exceptions as an excuse to "tax" them all, and send more money to our real enemy, is self-destructive.

Focusing on the bad actors in churches ignores the bad actors of the State. Those promoting the "taxing" of churches pretend that the IRS actually uses the stolen money efficiently, and to help people in need- and pretend that "taxation" (and "government" in general) isn't a prime cause of poverty in the first place. And that is so ridiculous I just have no response to that other than "Seriously? Have you been paying attention... ever?"

.

Cops. Getting worse, or being exposed better?

(Previously published on Patreon)

Going back just a few years, to around the time I started blogging, there were a few murders by cop. Every couple of months you'd hear of another one.

I still remember Kathryn Johnston.

But, in recent years the police have gotten so out of control and murderous- probably due to their overwhelming cowardice and the cult of "officer safety"- that I'll never be able to keep up with all their recent victims. 

Maybe there aren't really more cases. Maybe they are just better reported since it has been taken out of the hands of the mainstream media (who fawn over and shelter cops, regardless of how they try to act on air or in print). Maybe it's due to vigilance on the part of such groups as CopBlock and Film the Police that the murders aren't as easily swept under the rug now. 

But I doubt that accounts for all the recent upswing. I hear of more than one murder per day now. And, I suspect it's only going to get worse before police are abolished.
.

Celebrate your Freedom Cage

(Previously published on Patreon)

Imagine you woke up one morning inside a small room. The door was sealed tight, and through the windows you discovered this room was sitting all alone on the surface of Mars. You look around and see that there is enough stored food and water to survive for a long time, and the air scrubbers seem to be working well. Exploring the room you discover a manual which informs you that your needs will be supplied into the distant future. You will be expected to work inside that room for your life-sustaining supplies- but if you can't work (or just don't want to), you can apply to those who control the habitat to have your needs met anyway.

Or, let's imagine you are sitting in a cage surrounded by ravenous carnivores.

Some symbol of "freedom". Ironically, the eagle's name is "Liberty"

In either case, how free are you? How much liberty do you have? Sure, the Mars habitat and the cage might keep you alive, and death isn't really freedom in any meaningful sense. In your current situation you might be grateful for the protection, but is it sensible to love the cell, or honor those who put you into the position of needing its protection in the first place? And would you really spend time supporting whoever put you in that place and arguing in their favor? Is the protection fundamentally necessary, or was it made necessary, in order to survive your current situation, only by the evil actions of someone else?

Would you celebrate your "freedom cage"? Or, might you accept that even though you'd otherwise be killed, you are still a prisoner?

Well, why celebrate "borders" or The State and the Freedom Cage they have built around you? Do you really believe this is a good way to protect freedom? Much less, Liberty?

The only reason you are in danger from "terrorists" or "immigrants" is because of the liberty-violating actions of those calling themselves "government". The existence of other, possibly distant, government gangs doesn't justify the existence of a closer government gang, nor does it show that "your" gang protects you from the other gangs. Gangs are gangs; none is really substantively "better" than others. Fear of the others shouldn't inspire loyalty to one which claims to protect you from them.

Maybe I'm wrong. It has happened before.

To me it seems you are just celebrating your Freedom Cage.

.

Celebrating their chains and failure

This morning I was listening in on a group of old men chatting over their morning coffee. All seem to have been veterans, as they were discussing the VA and the things they get provided for "free" due to various levels of military-caused disability.

I have no clue about the things they spoke of- I only repeat what they said.

Anyway, they were talking enthusiastically about lifetime "free" car tags and hunting (and fishing) licenses as a couple of the perks they enjoy.

The thought that kept running through my head was that they should be insulted. They are told they were "fighting for freedom", and yet, some of the benefits they get are monuments to tyranny, instead.

"Freedom" would never permit such things as license plates or hunting licenses. They are an affront to Rightful Liberty. They are the opposite of what these guys thought they were fighting for. It is the US government spitting in their eye and telling them it's a reward.

But these old veterans saw no irony whatsoever.

I resisted the urge to point this out to them, but I wonder if I did the right thing. I would want to know if I were missing something so glaringly obvious. But, then, I'm "different".

.

No "better" government

I always read Libertarian Money, enjoy their posts, and usually agree with them. I was reading the linked one, though, and just had to disagree.

Is a local government really less intrusive than a national government?

I don't think so.

Washington DC (or even the state capital) is far, far away. They could pass any "laws" they felt like, but without someone "local" to impose those "laws" on me, what power do they have?

Yes, a "law" saying I must mow my lawn in a particular way is actually more oppressive than a federal anti-gun "law", simply because, well, which one is more likely to be enforced against me?

Do you think the feds have enough hired goons to go around and commit acts of enforcement against everyone with a gun they have criminalized? No. Unless you draw attention to yourself in some way they'll probably never notice. But, the code enforcers who will steal from you based upon your lawn; they live near you. They may drive past your house every day. Chances of them not noticing you in some way is practically non-existent.

Even any federal "laws" you get caught breaking will probably be enforced first by the local goons on behalf of the feds.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the local molesters and then focus on those thousands of miles away- if it's even worth the bother at that point. Because, without the complicity of the local thugs, how do the feds believe they will enforce anything?

Now, maybe a local government would be easier to fight off and win, but only if it couldn't call upon a federal backup gang to protect it from justice, and perhaps that's a good reason to undermine the false legitimacy of a "national government" first- and support secession or whatever cracks the egg. I'm all for breaking up any government into smaller, bitesize pieces, but I don't pretend one is somehow "better" than another. All are founded upon theft and aggression.

.

Authority belongs in our hands

Authority belongs in our hands

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 14, 2014)

When I look at the offices which were up for grabs in the recent election, or hear of the political appointments made to fill other positions, I see a lot of jobs that simply shouldn't exist, much less be filled. Not even with "the right person". It doesn't matter how good a person is when what they are doing shouldn't be done.

We don't argue over who should be placed in charge of human sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Well, most of us don't. So why select representatives or people to fill posts someone, at some point in time, thought necessary? Has history taught us nothing? No one needs an "attorney general", a "district attorney", a representative, a governor, or a president. No one is more qualified to run your life than you are, and no person can ever adequately represent the interests of another, not even on a one-to-one basis. To pretend otherwise diminishes your life.

Even if the job you seek to fill is a legitimate one- a job even a free society would want to hire a person to do- there are better ways to select, and pay, your employee.

If a job is legitimate you'll never need to resort to committing "taxation" to finance it, prohibit people opting out of your service, nor forbid competition (through a legal monopoly) in providing the wanted service.

A judge in a free society, for example, would need to attract customers by delivering a superior service. His judgments would need to be fair and equitable; he would not be able to show himself to be favoring one side in a dispute- as those judges who work for the State inevitably do. This conflict of interest should automatically disqualify the State-employed judges in any case where it is "The State vs" anyone. I would seek better options.

The evil insanity of hiring people to administer the taking of your neighbors' property should be even more obvious. Only by calling such an act "taxation" does it escape the moral outrage it would otherwise elicit.

If your system is so wonderful, prove it by making participation and compliance optional. Otherwise, you are just like any other thug who says "my way or the highway"; like the abusive spouse who says his victim must know they "deserve it" because they don't leave.

Look at how much of your money you could save by abolishing positions harmful to your life, liberty, and property, rather than fighting over who should fill them. Realize how much of your life and liberty you would regain once those positions are eliminated and the authority is placed back in your hands where it belongs.
.

Fear?

One question that anti-gun bigots love to pose to gun owners is "what are you afraid of?"

Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but as for myself- nothing that owning and carrying a gun could protect me from.

Do I believe a gun "makes me safe"? No, but it is a useful part of the strategy to make myself as safe as I can. There are many situations where having a gun in my control makes me safer than if I didn't- and the only times the opposite might be true is when facing the gang of the State. You'll have to decide for yourself whether freelance thugs or State thugs are the greatest danger, and act accordingly.

.

Liberty needs no lies

My second wife told me many times that I should "learn to lie". She was an expert, apparently, and thought it a personal flaw to not be as good at it as she was. Usually I just didn't feel the need. (Although, for my own safety, I eventually learned to hide things from her, which I suppose is a form of lying.)

But I do see how lies might smooth things over. Temporarily.

I won't lie to say I've never lied.

I don't like making people uncomfortable, and will generally try to smooth things over. Even in online discussions I try to not be mean, even when the person is an obvious idiot or troll. I sometimes fail. Stupid human flaws!

My normal in-person tactic, when the truth might be a problem, is to just say nothing- or to try to say the truth in a way that is less painful. This comes up a lot in social situations where people say ridiculous pro-State things that I want to respond to. The truth would cause trouble, so I try to just say nothing. It doesn't come naturally to me. Pointing out their foolishness will probably solve nothing in that case.

Even saying nothing can be troublesome. For those who believe silence is consent, if I say nothing I might find myself in a situation later where I have to speak up or end up doing something I know I shouldn't do. Like stand up and pledge allegiance to a flag or something similar.

Another problem is that some people just can't leave well-enough alone, and keep prying to find out why you aren't saying anything. Or want to know why you just rolled your eyes.

Telling the truth is better and usually easier, even when it hurts people's feelings. "Taxation" is theft. Cops are bad guys. The State is a silly, arbitrary, and harmful mental glitch. Supporting any of those things is a poor decision, based upon self-contradictory errors in thinking. If that hurts your feelings, you need to do some deep thinking and make the decision to go with the truth rather than with what feels nice.

The truth supports liberty in every case I've ever examined. Even in those rare cases where it's not immediately obvious that liberty is better than the alternative, it is only an even trade-off until you add in the simple value of Rightful Liberty- in which case, liberty again rises to the top.

You don't need to lie in support of liberty. If you think you do, just learn a little more and discover what you were missing that makes a lie unnecessary. It's better for everyone that way.

.

"I shot a bullet in the air, it came to earth..."

"...right over there"- 41 miles away.

Ammo in Spaaaaaace! OK, so not technically in space- but closer than I've even been.

 

Well, not technically ammo, either, since it was an inert round.

Kinda a fun thing to watch anyway.

.

Wearing dead animals

Back when just about all I wore were buckskin clothes, I used to have animal rights advocates fuss at me from time to time over my buckskin jacket. Possibly only the ones who didn't notice the guns and knives hanging on my belt. For some reason they never seemed to get upset that my pants were also buckskin.

The question was always the same: "How can you wear dead animals?"

My answer evolved into this:

"I know how many vertebrates died for me to make my jacket. Three deer, a pig (for the brains I used to tan the hides), and an elk, which is where the sinew used to sew the jacket came from. (Various numbers of yellow jackets were also crushed when I rung out the wet hides during tanning.)

"How many animals died due to the farming or manufacture, and transportation, of your cotton, nylon, or hemp clothing? Habitat loss, agricultural chemicals, the trucks and factories and fuel all took a toll on animals. Both of us wear clothes that resulted in death. At least I own it."

Those who say they believe killing animals is wrong are confused. I can understand believing that killing our closest relatives, like bonobos and other great apes is wrong, even if I don't completely agree (although I don't believe animals have rights, and that the ZAP doesn't cross species lines*). But, let's say for a minute that killing chimps is wrong. Where to draw the line? Apes? Primates? Mammals? Warm blooded animals? Vertebrates? What about wasps or worms?

If it is wrong to kill other animals it shouldn't matter if you are killing them to wear, to eat, by running over them with your vehicle, or by destroying their habitat. After all, they wouldn't care why you were killing them. And if you shouldn't kill other animals, then neither should the other animals kill each other. Humans wouldn't be subject to inconsistent special conditions.

I can understand how religion made such questions easier. After all, if you can just say "Souls." you don't actually need to think about anything deeper.

So, maybe I'm just an animal hater.

I very recently had to have a cat put down. A stray which had adopted me and had lived on my porch for a couple of months- and who suddenly suffered liver failure and possibly other health problems. It completely tore me up inside. I cried, and I have hardly gone outside since. His absence is very painful, as I had gotten used to his friendly companionship every time I went outside. And I actually like many other animals much more than I like cats. I have rescued and raised many injured and orphaned wild animals So, the idea that I don't love animals is absurd. I try to treat them well because I am a decent person, not because they have rights.

-

*If the ZAP applied to how you should relate to other animals, do you believe they are wrong for not applying it when they encounter each other or individuals of other species? Are they even capable of doing that?

The "true cost" of "police reform"

(Previously published on Patreon)

I can't believe this guy is serious, but I guess he is. He wants you to fear "police accountability" and he's willing to lie to make you see his side.

Let me address the assumptions (and falsehoods) this Chief LEO makes in his column: link I'll look at this by the numbers.

   1. He claims "more training" would result in a need for at least 25% more personnel- by which he means more armed thugs infesting your town. America is burdened with too many cops already. I'd prefer firing them all, but no rational person could possibly believe we have "too few"- or even the right number of cops. There are at least 10 times too many cops- and probably it's worse than that by at least an order of magnitude. There are better ways to deal with emergencies than by inviting a steroid (and "tax") addict with authority issues and "qualified immunity" into your life. People need to get weaned off of cops

2. He wants "holistic support" because the poor little cowards get stressed, especially with poor community support. Well, stop acting like some elite squad of assassins and thieves, and maybe some of that community support will come back. He is worried that police need to be kept strong. Ummm, yeah, I don't think that's the problem here. In fact, police are much too strong- therein lies the root of the problem- and need to have that strength dialed back. A lot. No more military toys. No more guns on the hip- let them call upon armed passersby if they need armed support. No more privileges for wearing the clown suit. And, most definitely no more "qualified immunity" whatsoever.

3. This next whine is so ignorant I can't believe he actually put it in writing for others to witness: "Everybody seems to know their rights and not their obligations. The law requires compliance with a lawful command." No one has any obligation toward a cop that they don't have to anyone else they encounter. You have an obligation to not attack and not violate their property. The problem is that cops forget they have this exact same obligation to everyone else, too.

 And, that is why almost every command a cop makes comes with no obligation. If a cop orders you to drop your gun, he is breaking the law, so you are not "required" to "comply". The fact that the pathetic tax junkie will murder you for hesitating to comply doesn't prove anything except that he is a murderer. Saying the "law requires compliance with a lawful command" is a tautology of the silliest kind. The law says it is the law. No! Really? LOL! What does the law say the law is? The law, of course!

4. Now, he is embarrassing himself again. He says "Bring us minority applicants that you want to be your police officers". OK. I want no one to be "my" police officers. "Race", gender, sexual orientation, or whatever else make zero difference to me. And, don't say "your police officers" because I have never owned one, nor would I want to. Those cops belong to politicians and bureaucrats, only. That is who they "protect and serve". And obey.  

Then he goes off about indoctrinating children into believing cops are good guys and becoming one is somehow honorable. Ha! The only way to be a "great police officer" is to walk off the "job" and start advocating for liberty instead of supporting cops. The only "great cops" are ex-cops who now hate cops.

5. This is probably his most pitiful point. Here he is painting cops as the victims. If I try to kidnap someone or steal their property, and they fight back, I am not a victim. Nope. My victim might turn the tables, but if I don't like it I can refuse to attack and steal in the first place. I guess cops are lesser beings who can't make that choice.  

He says resisting is an "offense against an officer"- which is backwards. There is an inalienable human right to resist being assaulted. Even the "laws" used to reflect the fact that an "arrest" committed against a person who hadn't done anything wrong was subject to being resisted- even if you had to kill the enforcer in the process.

"Stop dropping charges where police are crime victims." This really isn't the problem. No cop, while on duty, is the victim of a crime. The perpetrator, probably, but not the victim. This is just a case of a coward trying to switch it up. It's like a rapist claiming "Rape!" and blaming his victim when he gets caught in the act.

"...a crime against the police is a crime against everyone’s peace and dignity." No it isn't. The existence of police is a crime against everyone's peace and dignity. Want to help? Quit.

"We really do carry the badge on your behalf." Then DROP it. Now! You do not act on my behalf, nor with my consent.  

6. I can almost agree with part of this one. Local police shouldn't be controlled by DC. DC is just as bad, but further away- letting them use the local enforcers as local hitmen isn't good. Of course, this is already being done, regardless. Local cops are told to enforce federal rules along with local ones. Local enforcers are also being bought with bribes of military hardware. No DC oversight? No federal toys. Those simply must go together.

"Policing in a democratic society must be under scrutiny. But let’s do this examination together." It has been done, and you failed spectacularly. Now, get off the tax teat, never again initiate force nor steal, find something useful to do, and do it. Or, keep whining about what special little snowflakes all your brethren are.

He totally failed to address any of the actual issues, trying instead to turn them inside out and make it look like the SS are the victims of the people in the gas chamber. Poor little cops! I hope enough people outside his gang see him as the foolish aggressor he has exposed himself to be.

.

All men are created (with) equal (rights)

All men are created equal. But, apparently, that's a difficult concept for some to understand. They try to make it mean something it doesn't so they can justify certain behaviors.

"There is something rather sweet about being Jeffersonian and believing that on some level all human creatures are born equal" (link)

Yeah... except, that isn't what he meant. Obviously there are physical and mental differences among humans- even as babies. But, where all humans are equal and identical is in the rights we are born with. This is the result of ignoring the rest of the quote, which goes on to say: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Nothing can alter (or eliminate) those rights- not "citizenship", location, past behavior, permission slips, badges, jobs, skin color, intelligence, nothing.

It's really not a hard concept to understand, and takes more work to not understand it.

.