United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: We Have a "Duty" to Submit; They Have No Duty to Protect
Source:
Pro Libertate
URL Source: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
Published: Jul 23, 2016
Author: William Norman Grigg
Post Date: 2016-07-23 12:03:08 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1337
Comments: 18
“Somebody is going to die tonight,” a visibly agitated Anthony Lord told a close friend on July 16, 2015. Lord, a resident of Benedicta, Maine, was a registered sex offender who displayed symptoms of violent derangement. His anger had been kindled by a voice mail message from the Maine State Police reporting that a woman named Brittany Irish had accused him of sexually assaulting her, and asking him to visit a local barracks to be interviewed about the matter. “We made a FOIA request for the official reports and other documents on this case,” Van Dyke told me. “It was denied on the grounds that they are part of an `ongoing investigation.’” Lord’s trial isn’t scheduled until August of 2017, which would give the State Police more than a year to keep those documents from the public. Accordingly, “we decided to file suit and get the documents through discovery,” Van Dyke explained. He is guardedly optimistic that Brittany’s case is strong enough to overcome “the cottage industry in `qualified immunity’” that constantly devises ever more elaborate rationales for failing to hold police officers accountable for their actions – and their derelictions. 
Future murder victim Kyle Hewitt. 
Brittany Irish, with brother Jaime, displays some of her wounds. 
Attorney Van Dyke.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
It's not a "contention" but a plain fact - but that won't stop LF's copsuckers from denying it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You might have missed the upper court ruling on whether LE has a duty to "protect" the SHEEP.... and it was ruled they don't (and in reality they can't in almost all occasions). So why do you keep knocking them for not doing it, why do you suggest the impossible... AND WHY CANT YOU PROTECT YOURSELF, YOU FILTHY WEAK PATHETIC SHEEP? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You might have missed that the ruling was about "general" duty; you might also have missed how by contacting Lord and informing him of the sexual assault complaint, the State Police “acted to increase the threat which existed to Plaintiffs beyond that which otherwise existed” so the question was no longer one of "general" duty. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So why do they officially lie with the oft repeated slogan, "to serve and protect?"
Are you suggesting that police should be disbanded and replaced by the local citizen's militia?
"To sit on our fat asses eating donuts and occasionally conduct an extrajudicial execution" didn't do well in focus groups. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You don't even make a good shitbag defense attorney... and defense attorneys are lower than whale shit (and that's at the bottom of the ocean) lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yeah, when your sheeple peers step up and stop the next active gunman. You counting on 50 faggots arming themselves before they go dancing with Stinky Peter Puffs nephew? Don't hold your libtard breath, A-hole I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
For the same reason some scumbag lying fuckstain painted all over his signs, " plan to restore America" and he didn't RESTORE SHIT, asshole. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I defer to your superior shitbaggery. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. How does a nation become restored when it is totally fractured? HeLL, America doesn't even have any money to "restore' anything.
Then kill yourself. Stick a barrel in your mouth, create a good seal with your lips.... and squeeze the trigger (do it outside so you don't soil the double wide trailer carpet). I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It should be, "to $erve and collect."
More like: to steal from the publick coffers and do nothing but eat doughnuts. Did ya notice, ol' GI didn't answer the question?
Sure we do. America is sovereign. We can never run out of money. We print it. It might not be worth much by the end.
Yeah, the BIG lie the politicians won't tell you about. In order to make all these domestic BS programs/foreign wars, the USA borrowed 20 trillion bucks.
We borrowed it, but as a sovereign we can always repay it, by simply creating the money. We borrowed, and we repay, in nominal dollars. Which means that we always can print the money to pay the debt. Of course this creates inflation and a variety of nasty problems, but we never, ever have to default because we can always print more. Whenever you read about the threat of "default" by a sovereign that issues its own money, you always know that you are being shined on. The USA never, ever has to default, because it is a sovereign issuer and can always create more money out of thin air, and will do so too, rather than default. So, when somebody is telling you about Social Security "running out of money" or giving any other US Federal government default scenario, you need to realize that this person is hysterical and does not really understand how the world works (and therefore, should not be listened to very seriously). The question for the US government is never, ever default. Not ever. The Federal government of the United States cannot default, and cannot be put into the situation where it will - other than by choice - because the federal government of the US has the sovereign power to simply create the money to pay its debts. So, if the government is risking default, that merely means that it is making a political decision to refuse to pay creditors, rather than to create inflation by printing money, that is all. Because the investor class is so very powerful and so very politically connected (witness the Puerto Rico muni bailout and the bank bailouts), the government will almost certainly always just print money, rather than wiping out lenders. The resulting inflation is the problem, or could be, unless there is a mechanism to hold that down. In recent years, jiggering around with capital requirements, to force banks to maintain huge reserves, simply creates a pool for all of this extra cash printed to pay debts to go sit inert somewhere and not trigger inflation. What happens to the money, inflation, all of that, is really quite irrelevant. The only thing that REALLY matters is the actual existence of the goods. People don't need money - they need food, shelter, clothing, medicine, fuel, etc. - those are the hard points, the actual delivery for use of real things. Money is just a somewhat imaginary medium for the acquisition of those things, including the capital investment in creating the structures to that produce those things. Stable money is good for private actors who don't have sufficient capital to be able to own the means of production, and who therefore only have money and the buildup of money over time to be able to purchase things. This is the middle class (upper, middle and lower) and the working class. The wealthy own the capital and the land itself, so no matter what happens to the money, they can derive a profit however inflated the currency gets. The very poor, dependent on government largesse, will always be given sufficient money (however inflated) to be able to acquire the necessary material things for survival. Most people live in the unhappy space where inflation hurts them and drives down their standard of living. So, there are very good reasons why printing money is an unpalatable solution to debt. Nevertheless, as a factual matter, the US can't default on its debt other than by choice, Social Security can never run out of money, money ever, because the government can always create more money out of the air to pay for everything in current dollars. The question is really how much inflation we want to bear. The legerdemain of recent years has created huge supplies of money without touching off hyperinflation, because of the way those supplies were pooled. It is much like the strategic petroleum reserve, which was always touted as a way to be secure against oil cutoffs, which it was if really needed, but primarily it was a means for the government to use tax dollars to buy oil when the price was high, and pump it back into the ground, thereby transferring government wealth to private oil interests. To have the oil available there was no need to pump it out of the ground at the wellhead and then ship it to another spot to pump it back into the ground. The oil was just as available at the wellhead. Why, then, do that? Because at the wellhead it produced no profit for the producers, and they are politically connected. Pump it and then sell it to the US government for tax dollars, and you effect a massive ongoing transfer payment from the federal coffers to private enterprise - really, essentially, creating a price and profit stabilization mechanism for oil that was pretty much the same as has been done for agriculture since the 1930s. But the Republican administrations that wanted to subsidize the oil industry could not do that in the open, because it was contrary to their "free market" mantra that got them the votes. Therefore, they slapped the words "Strategic Reserve" on it, and spoke in dark terms of national security. And thereby they were able to devise a system to pump oil out of the ground in one place, back into the ground at another, and use federal money to enrich the private oil companies that created all of the infrastructure to do it and pumped the oil - and without even any real public scrutiny. The "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" is a marketing name for oil subsidies. Why not call the agricultural subsidies the "Strategic Cheese Reserve"? Exactly the same thing. Different administrations have to put different marketing labels on the same activities, because they have different electorates to convince that they are different. It's been popular forever for folks on the right, and gold miners, to talk about federal government default. Federal default is impossible, other than by choice - the sovereign can always print money. Now, truth is, inflation hits the lower and middle classes the most. Default would hit the upper class. It would actually be BETTER for the country at large to default and cancel debt than to inflate the currency to the lira in order to keep the upper class whole. But the upper class have always had a stranglehold on our government, and given its structure, probably always will. Therefore, any talk of default is absurd. It will never happen, because the government will always print more money. There are big budgetary problems coming in the future that mean printing money and, probably, eventually, really bad inflation. Which is why it is a very good idea for working and middle class people to concentrate on buying themselves a piece of real property - because THAT inflates in value with inflation. Financial assets swoon and become unstable, but the land stays, and you need a piece of land on which to live. Then, with a piece of land, sweat equity substitutes for hard capital, and can make any piece of land, even a backyard, economically productive if only in the form of a vegetable garden.
We have no duty to submit. Outward submission is a matter of common sense and convenience, not real duty.
By contacting Lord and informing him of the sexual assault complaint, and then refusing to provide protection to Brittany, the State Police “acted to increase the threat which existed to Plaintiffs beyond that which otherwise existed,” the lawsuit contends.
#2. To: ConservingFreedom (#1)
and then refusing to provide protection to Brittany,
#3. To: GrandIsland (#2)
You might have missed the upper court ruling on whether LE has a duty to "protect"
#4. To: GrandIsland (#2)
You might have missed the upper court ruling on whether LE has a duty to "protect" the SHEEP.... and it was ruled they don't (and in reality they can't in almost all occasions).
#5. To: GrandIsland, ConservingFreedom (#2)
AND WHY CANT YOU PROTECT YOURSELF, YOU FILTHY WEAK PATHETIC SHEEP?
#6. To: buckeroo (#4)
So why do they officially lie with the oft repeated slogan, "to serve and protect?"
#7. To: ConservingFreedom (#3)
#8. To: A Pole (#5)
Are you suggesting that police should be disbanded and replaced by the local citizen's militia?
#9. To: buckeroo (#4)
So why do they officially lie with the oft repeated slogan, "to serve and protect?"
#10. To: GrandIsland (#7)
You don't even make a good shitbag
#11. To: GrandIsland (#9)
" plan to restore America"
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
HeLL, America doesn't even have any money to "restore' anything.
#13. To: buckeroo (#4)
So why do they officially lie with the oft repeated slogan, "to serve and protect?"
#14. To: Fred Mertz, GrandIsland (#13)
It should be, "to $erve and collect."
#15. To: buckeroo (#11)
HeLL, America doesn't even have any money to "restore' anything.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
It might not be worth much by the end.
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
#18. To: Deckard (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]