“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America.
It’s all a lie.
There can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.
What is this language of force?
Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.
This is not the language of freedom.
This is not even the language of law and order.
This is the language of force.
Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.
This police overkill isn’t just happening in troubled hot spots such as Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.
A decade earlier, the NYPD engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. The protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million for what would become the largest protest settlement in history.
Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers who had gathered in North Dakota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched by police.
In the college town of Charlottesville, Va., protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.
More recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation—complete with an armored vehicle and an army of police drones—reared its ugly head in the small town of Dahlonega, Ga., where 600 state and local militarized police clad in full riot gear vastly outnumbered the 50 protesters and 150 counterprotesters who had gathered to voice their approval/disapproval of the Trump administration’s policies.
To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.
The police state does not discriminate.
As a USA Today article notes, “Federally arming police with weapons of war silences protesters across all justice movements… People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”
A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.
As a study by researchers at Stanford University makes clear, “When law enforcement receives more military materials — weapons, vehicles and tools — it becomes … more likely to jump into high-risk situations. Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.”
Even the color of a police officer’s uniform adds to the tension. As the Department of Justice reports, “Some research has suggested that the uniform color can influence the wearer—with black producing aggressive tendencies, tendencies that may produce unnecessary conflict between police and the very people they serve.”
You want to turn a peaceful protest into a riot?
Bring in the militarized police with their guns and black uniforms and warzone tactics and “comply or die” mindset. Ratchet up the tension across the board. Take what should be a healthy exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turn it into a lesson in authoritarianism.
Mind you, those who respond with violence are playing into the government’s hands perfectly.
The government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its biggest guns.
They want us divided. They want us to turn on one another.
They want us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.
They want us silent, servile and compliant.
They certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully.
And they definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
You know how one mayor characterized the tear gassing of protesters by riot police? He called it an “unfortunate event.”
Unfortunate, indeed.
You know what else is unfortunate?
It’s unfortunate that these overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.
It’s unfortunate that “we the people” have become the proverbial nails to be hammered into submission by the government and its vast armies.
And it’s particularly unfortunate that government officials—especially police—seem to believe that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question.
In other words, “we the people” are the servants in the government’s eyes rather than the masters.
The government’s rationale goes like this:
Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.
Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:
If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is not the rhetoric of a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.
And this is certainly not what I would call “community policing,” which is supposed to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the police and the community they serve.
Indeed, this is martial law masquerading as law and order.
Any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.
All that stuff in the First Amendment (about freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances) sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons, surveillance devices, and a slew of laws that empower them to arrest and charge citizens with bogus “contempt of cop” charges (otherwise known as asserting your constitutional rights).
It doesn’t have to be this way.
There are other, far better models to follow.
For instance, back in 2011, the St. Louis police opted to employ a passive response to Occupy St. Louis activists. First, police gave the protesters nearly 36 hours’ notice to clear the area, as opposed to the 20 to 60 minutes’ notice other cities gave. Then, as journalist Brad Hicks reports, when the police finally showed up:
They didn’t show up in riot gear and helmets, they showed up in shirt sleeves with their faces showing. They not only didn’t show up with SWAT gear, they showed up with no unusual weapons at all, and what weapons they had all securely holstered. They politely woke everybody up. They politely helped everybody who was willing to remove their property from the park to do so. They then asked, out of the 75 to 100 people down there, how many people were volunteering for being-arrested duty? Given 33 hours to think about it, and 10 hours to sweat it over, only 27 volunteered.
As the police already knew, those people’s legal advisers had advised them not to even passively resist, so those 27 people lined up to be peacefully arrested, and were escorted away by a handful of cops. The rest were advised to please continue to protest, over there on the sidewalk … and what happened next was the most absolutely brilliant piece of crowd control policing I have heard of in my entire lifetime.
All of the cops who weren’t busy transporting and processing the voluntary arrestees lined up, blocking the stairs down into the plaza. They stood shoulder to shoulder. They kept calm and silent. They positioned the weapons on their belts out of sight. They crossed their hands low in front of them, in exactly the least provocative posture known to man. And they peacefully, silently, respectfully occupied the plaza, using exactly the same non-violent resistance techniques that the protesters themselves had been trained in.
As Forbes concluded, “This is a more humane, less costly, and ultimately more productive way to handle a protest. This is great proof that police can do it the old fashioned way - using their brains and common sense instead of tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray - and have better results.”
It can be done.
Police will not voluntarily give up their gadgets and war toys and combat tactics, however. Their training and inclination towards authoritarianism has become too ingrained.
If we are to have any hope of dismantling the police state, change must start locally, community by community. Citizens will have to demand that police de-escalate and de-militarize. And if the police don’t listen, contact your city councils and put the pressure on them.
Remember, they are supposed to work for us. They might not like hearing it—they certainly won’t like being reminded of it—but we pay their salaries with our hard-earned tax dollars.
“We the people” have got to stop accepting the lame excuses trotted out by police as justifications for their inexcusable behavior.
Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.
Either we live in a constitutional republic or a police state.
We have rights.
As Justice William O. Douglas advised in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.
The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.
Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).
This emphasis on nonviolence goes both ways. Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.
There is nothing safe or secure or free about exercising your rights with a rifle pointed at you.
The police officer who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened, is just as much of a danger—if not more—as any violence that might erupt from a protest rally.
Compliance is no guarantee of safety.
Then again, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.
The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.
Indeed, had Christ merely complied with the Roman police state, there would have been no crucifixion and no Christian religion. Had Gandhi meekly fallen in line with the British Empire’s dictates, the Indian people would never have won their independence.
Had Martin Luther King Jr. obeyed the laws of his day, there would have been no civil rights movement. And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.
We must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.
The American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.
It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.
#1: jeremiad To: Deckard (#0)
I especially love the first paragraph. It is a total IN YOUR FACE to those who mock people who believe in citizen sovereignty. They for one, don't understand it. Two, they misrepresent it. Like looking for normal people on Jerry Springer, they will cite as examples, outliers that believe all laws do not apply to them.
jeremiad posted on 2019-09-17 13:45:02 Reply Private Reply
#2: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
The Rutherford Institute is a national civil liberties org working hand in hand with the ACLU …
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-17 15:22:32 Reply Private Reply
#3: Deckard To: Gatlin (#2)
About The Rutherford Institute
Our job is to make the government play by the rules of the Constitution.
There are 319 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice.
Tyranny wouldn't stand a chance.
Here at The Rutherford Institute, we believe that the best defense against tyranny is an educated citizenry that knows their rights and is prepared to stand up for them. That's why we continue to sound the alarm over threats to our freedoms and help Americans push back against the government’s heavy-handed tyranny on almost every front
Your tax-deductible donation makes it possible for The Rutherford Institute to
The Rutherford Institute—nonpartisan, apolitical and committed to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights—is working tirelessly to reshape the government from the bottom up
Deckard posted on 2019-09-17 17:12:08 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: jeremiad (#1)
Apparently to some, patriotism means total submission to government when in fact it is our duty as citizens to question the actions of government and criticize them when they are wrong.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-17 17:25:13 Reply Private Reply
#5: Gatlin To: Deckard (#3)
Where the Rutherford institute nose ends – ACLU’s ass begins …
Their job is to join with ACLU in lawsuits.Here, I will show you:
Salute,Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-17 18:42:08 Reply Private Reply
#6: Gatlin To: Deckard (#4)
Such information can be effectively used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda. The information is generally not objective and is usually presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular belief or perception by using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response in people.
The way to avoid being a victim of propaganda it to learn to recognize it. This may be difficult for some because they select to read only what they want to believe.
Some folks’ brains don't let piddling little facts get in the way of a good story, allowing lies to infect the mind with surprising ease. Right, Deckard?
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-17 19:06:01 Reply Private Reply
#7: Deckard To: Gatlin (#5)
That you object to that goal is more evidence of your hatred of the Constitution and your submissive fealty to fed.gov.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-17 19:35:31 Reply Private Reply
#8: Gatlin To: Deckard (#7)
That you object to their holding hands with the ACLU and constantly assisting them is full evidence of your biased ignorance and inability to face fact that slap you in the face and your blind hatred for the fed.gov.
Why is it so hard to see what your “shining knight” is engaged in and that their mission statement is mere propaganda.
I have in my lifetime seen dumb people – but I have never seen anyone who can ignorantly ignore facts to the great extreme that you do.
I did not MAKE THE SHIT up. I posted links. That is EVIDENCE, firm EVIDENCE.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-17 20:07:24 Reply Private Reply
#9: Gatlin To: Deckard (#7)
This is so important that I am going to take you through it again, knowing full well that you will never see the fact for what it is.
But anyway, others will be able to see how stupid you are. As if they didn’t already know.
You posted an except from their mission statement:
I posted case after case after case to show you that what they say is not what you so. I showed you that they are in bed with the ACLU time after time and again to pursue the priority cases for the ACLU.
That was not shit I made up like you invariably so often do. There were links to ever one of those cases to provide you with deninitive proof of what I was showing you.
But, you did not look at the truth and face it.
What you did was to ignore facts and return to personally attack me by saying:
I would never object to “that” goal if it were truly one being pursued.. But I did not see them fulfilling that goal when all I saw with their being ACLU’s “gofer.” Their legal aide.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-17 20:31:14 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: Dckard (#9)
Take away their close association with the ACLU and their supporting role in ACLU lawsuits and I will be with you all the way.
It could be a fine organization. But right now, I think you are misguided in you assessment.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-17 20:55:33 Reply Private Reply
#11: Deckard To: Gatlin (#8)
You're a fricking moron.
Sure, they have worked with the ACLU on some issues. They work together with a number of groups, all of which have the same goals - protecting the constitutional rights of ALL Americans.
Do you think that the constitution only applies to conservatives?
Freedom is not limited to just those you agree with .
What else has the Rutherford Institute done?
(From your Wikipedia link) Things you "conveniently" ignored:
While once primarily concerned with the defense of religious liberties, the organization later expanded its mission to encompass other constitutional issues such as search and seizure, free speech, and zero tolerance policy.
The institute has been described as "a more conservative American Civil Liberties Union" (ACLU). Some of the Institute's legal actions were widely reported, including helping Paula Jones pursue a sexual harassment lawsuit in 1997 against President Bill Clinton, and its defense of airline pilots and passengers affected by the Transportation Security Administration's security procedures, middle and high school students suspended and expelled under inflexible zero tolerance policies, and the free speech rights of preachers and political protestors.
The Rutherford Institute has worked with a number of similar groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, the Cato Institute, the Constitution Project, and the Liberty Coalition.
Whitehead was described by jazz historian and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff as "this nation's Paul Revere of protecting civil liberties."
Your attempt to smear the Rutherford Institute by associating them with the ACLU is just more of your distraction and obfuscation which you are oh so good at.
You ignore the topic and instead pull this bullshit tactic.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 06:00:40 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: Gatlin (#9)
You posted distraction and obfuscation. Nothing more.
But I did not see them fulfilling that goal when all I saw with their being ACLU’s “gofer.” Their legal aide.
You're an idiot. They have worked with SEVERAL pro-constitution groups.
You really don't like any group who fights for the rights of ALL Americans - you just want those who think like you and with your distorted and demented world view to have those rights.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 06:05:25 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
Then – lo and behold – it soon becomes a fact easily predicted that you do find 2, 3 or 4 blog posts or obscure motivated pieces. And with diabolically cruel thoughts, your channeled fiendish process immediately proclaims – Ah Ha, good ones.
It is now time for your daily constitutional. No, you don’t go to the bathroom and take a crap – what you do is take the crap you just found and head quickly over to LF to spread that “shit” all along the side bar.
Wow – you think - you have been such a great little “do-be” and acted as a “messenger of evil” for the “destroy America movement” to sow the seeds of discontentment over at LF. Thereby, with hopes you can add some aconvert to the goal of completely destroying America in order to rebuild it into a country run “their” way – which has most unfortunately also become “your” way.
Now is the time you lavishly heap extravagant self-praise upon yourself while making a dedicated self-assertion to continue the evil act of putting forth your own opinions in a boastful or inconsiderate manner that implies you feel superior to others.
The only thing left for you to do each day is to fiercely attack in an almost savagely aggressive manner any and all who present contradictory information to the propaganda you have posted while acting as an unpaid messenger.
For example, you posted …
I replied … To prove this, I posted case after case after case where they joined hand in “holy government hating matrimony” with the ACLU. I did that in hopes of showing you “that what they say is not what they do.” In fact I saw stated in two places where it was described as “ACLU organization only slightly a bit more conservative.”But, ALAS - with the apprehension of evil I definitely knew to be forthcoming, you posted …
A distraction is something that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else. It is therefore hard for me to understand – although I admit to not wasting time trying – to how you can see a detailed listing where time and time again their duty was to simply hold hands with the ACLU and support the ACLU’s cause as a distaction.
Deckard, that is the ACLU – your proclaimed “fiendish legal satin” that is now okay with you since someone who posted an anti-government you like is working with them.
Whew …
You were further misled when you said to me …
Woah, hold on there, Hoss.We are discussing them working extremely closely and supporting the ACLU. Now you come back with “they have worked with SEVERAL” pro-constitution group. Excuse me, I have never known the ACLU to be a pro-constitution group. Hmmm …
But, even thought they did work with a FEW pro-constitution groups, you need to stop and look at the ratio of the fully devoted support they gave to the ACLU compared to those you refer to.
You describing the ACLU as a pro-constitution group just keeps flashing before me.
That is not true. I served for 24 years with a group that fights – and fought- for ALL Americans. I dedicated my life – and I was fully prepared to give my life – in doing that.
YOU, stop right this minute. Go stand looking to a mirror and repeat ten time what you just posted while you are eyeball to eyeball with yourself at that mirror.It has been said that God has a plan or purpose for each and every one of us. Although there are people continuing to go through life without ever realizing that. This, however doesn’t change the fact that God put us here for a purpose. I truly hope that at some close future time in your life, Deckard, you can find your rightful place with a new and rewarding mission – and abandon your fruitless mission to just hate cops and government.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 09:12:25 Reply Private Reply
#14: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
Which is EXACTLY what you have done.
Sod off wanker - your motives are transparent.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 09:27:06 Reply Private Reply
#15: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
Trying to pass yourself off as some "moral authority" and preaching to your betters?
Man, you're a real trip psycho!
13 posts in and you are still obfuscating.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 09:28:29 Reply Private Reply
#16: Gatlin To: Deckard (#14)
My motif was simply a sincere effort to try and get you to see the truth about this organization.
Obviously I failed – but I shall never regret trying.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 09:39:09 Reply Private Reply
#17: Deckard To: Gatlin (#16)
Get lost troll. Yeah - that is exactly what you are.
From YOUR Wikipedia link:
The institute has been described as "a more conservative American Civil Liberties Union" (ACLU).
Oh - you added the "only very slightly"?
Nah - no motive to smear Rutherford, huh?.
What a disingenuous tool!
You've posted links to where they have joined with the ACLU on some issues - You've done nothing but embarrass yourself.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 09:52:37 Reply Private Reply
#18: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
Moral authority is defined as authority premised on principles, or fundamental truths, which are independent of written, or positive, laws. As such, moral authority necessitates the existence of and adherence to truth.
Yes - I am what I am …
You are saying that only because you desperately need to resort to a personal name-calling attack since it is abundantly clear to everyone that it is a forthright admission that you don’t have anything valid or worthwhile to say. Not even a copy and paste link … 13 posts in and you are still obfuscating. Show where anything – ANYTHING – I have posted can by you be rendered either obscure, unclear or unintelligible. And then I will be more that happy to factually show that the view you have taken is incorrect and solely based on your faulty thinking or understanding.Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 09:55:14 Reply Private Reply
#19: Deckard To: Gatlin (#16)
Yes, of course - because protecting the constitutional rights of Americans is an oh-so "cop-hating and anti-government" thing to do.
The real question is - why are you NOT angry at the constitutional abuses foisted on Americans on a daily basis?
19 posts in, and STILL no comments from you about the article.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 09:55:23 Reply Private Reply
#20: Gatlin To: Deckard (#17)
Pitiful …
Being a “more conservative” version of the ACLU is something you proudly post.Amazing – Truly amazing.
We are talking about a degree. You need to read tje transcripts found in the massive list of links I posted which shows they were in lock step with the ACLU and determine for yourself what is “more” and what is “slightly more.”
Don’t let Wikipedia – like you do all of your sources – do you thinking for you.
Anyway, how can they be “more conservative” when they join WITH the ACLU? To me, they are one and the same with them being only “slightly more conservative” than the ACLU in the extremely small number of cases they have pursued while not under the umbrella of the ACLU.
Read – CARFFULLY READ – the links and then try – TRY – to see how closely they are tied to the ACLU.
“Some” is a degree of measurement. What needs to be addressed is WHY they continually associate with the ACLU?Read – READ – the links …
I shall: Never Be Embarrassed for Standing for the Truth.And I solemnly promise I never will be.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 10:30:39 Reply Private Reply
#21: Deckard To: Gatlin (#20)
You disingenuous prick.
YOU posted the original Wiki links - I just showed where you deliberately altered what was found there. Remember gramps?
that it was an accurate description when they were described as “an ACLU type organization but only very slightly more conservative.”
Yeah - you changed the original to that.
Don’t let Wikipedia – like you do all of your sources – do you thinking for you.
Pot - meet kettle.
Now 20 posts in, and STILL no comment on the article itself.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 10:42:13 Reply Private Reply
#22: Gatlin To: Deckard (#19)
Please – PLEASE – show me where “cop-hating” and “being anti-government” is specifically listed as a constitutional right?
Anger or intermittent explosive disorder (IED) …
I am never angry. I have no intermittent explosive disorder.You want to discuss constitutional abuses, then we can do so after you have finished here defending an organization who supports the ACLU.
And it will get none from me because it is purely a hate filled article unworthy of support. Perhaps it is worthy of condemnation, but I would rather heave that on you for constantly displaying your ignorance.Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 10:48:18 Reply Private Reply
#23: Liberator To: Deckard (#21)
That's the problem here.
There are two actual legit responses to any article/claim at any so-called forum.
1) Refute 2) Support
Then the third is a visceral reaction, which is most often the case:
Read/watch 1 minute's worth of a given claim, kill the messenger, then deny the point/premise even exists.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-18 10:51:56 Reply Private Reply
#24: Liberator To: Deckard (#0)
This premise is an absolutely the truth in the Post-911 World. But especially in the post-0bama NWO-World.
Worst than that, we are now suppressed under the umbrella of a modified, select "Martial Law" -- in which the Police State law enforcement oddly includes a new un-official branch of Gubmint: SOCIAL MEDIA GIANTS.
In this paradigm of a "living, breathing Constitution", LE and Free Speech is selectively suppressed (against Conservatives) OR enforced (supports Left).
Liberator posted on 2019-09-18 10:59:31 Reply Private Reply
#25: Deckard To: Liberator (#23)
Thanks for the reply Bro.
As you well know, I have some issues with the ACLU. But when someone trolls the thread with non-stop claims that The Rutherford Institute is the ACLU's bitch, anyone can see those posts for what they are - deliberate attempts to derail the thread and obfuscate the issue at hand. And Gatlin is so good at that.
You won't see Rutherford aligning with the ACLU on abortion rights, gay rights or gun rights. You will see them work together on truly constitutional rights, freedom of speech, the right to protest, fighting against intrusive spying on all Americans by the NSA.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 11:01:40 Reply Private Reply
#26: Gatlin To: Deckard (#21)
The links showed court cases that formed definite conclusions.
You showed an “opinion” from someone.
Big difference there – asshole.
What – WHAT – do you think Wikipedia is and anyone can do on Wikipedia?Let me once again try to educate your worthless soul.
Read the word “edited” carefully.Someone posted with an edited “some” and I posted with an edited “slightly less.”
Both terns were personal opinions expressed by two individuals.
What’s your problem here – asshole?
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 11:06:31 Reply Private Reply
#27: Gatlin To: Deckard (#25)
But I also have well learned that you have no issue with an organization that posts in lockstep supplying full support top the ACLU when it POSTS a SINGLE article that fits your hatefilled agenda and agree with.
A most shameful display …
You are correct in that respect. But, let’s see now. That is three out of 100, 1,000, 10,000 or how many more cases.
You are being fed a little rubber bone – doggie boy.
And you are violently chewing at it as thought it is a real bone.
What's the latest count and please let me know when I get to 30.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 11:16:24 Reply Private Reply
#28: Deckard To: Liberator (#24)
Look at what it has come to, especially under Trump (not saying it's his fault but it's happening now).
Leftists have turned free speech into an Orwellian thoughtcrime - college campuses being among the worst offenders.
It's ironic that Berkley, the one-time capital of free speech has gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction and have effectively outlawed any speech they disagree with.
And it's not just the colleges - someone uses a racial slur or a "homophobic" comment decades ago, and the SJW thought police will dredge it up and ostracize that individual, sometimes costing them their jobs.
Meanwhile, all forms of what they would otherwise themselves call "hate speech" is given a free pass because it's said against Trump or Republicans because, you know - they are all racist homophobes, right?
Antifa is given a free pass to commit violence and shut down the speech of conservatives, and they are cheered for it while those who stand against their tactics have their guns taken away.
A Marine vet posted this a while back:
“If Antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next," Kohfield told a crowd, according to the Oregonian. “I’d slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out Antifa.”
They took his guns. Yet there are those here on this site who cheered the action by the FBI.
The former Marine, Shane Kohfield, 32, was not charged with any crime, but surrendered five guns, including an AR-15 rifle, according to Phil Lemman, Oregon’s acting deputy state court administrator, the Washington Examiner reported.
Why isn't the FBI going after antifa as a "domestic terrorist" organization instead of going after so called "white supremacists"?
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 11:16:42 Reply Private Reply
#29: Deckard To: Gatlin (#26)
Oh - that's what you're going with?
Keep embarrassing yourself Parsons, it's a hoot-and-a-half watching you squirm.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 11:18:45 Reply Private Reply
#30: Liberator To: Deckard, Gatlin (#25)
I hear ya.
We've got to stop maligning a source and dismissing every claim by simple association WITHOUT even giving the claim a cursory examination. It's intellectually lazy.
The Rutherford Institute is hardly the ACLU's b*tch. Their argument here is legit. (I *do* happen to recall Gatlin's STRONG SUPPORT of the ACLU though at LP....)
...Anyone can see those posts for what they are - deliberate attempts to derail the thread and obfuscate the issue at hand.
Yup. Almost as though *some* look at a thread-derailment as their "job."
As I suggested -- refute or support a claim based on the evidence as presented.
You won't see Rutherford aligning with the ACLU on abortion rights, gay rights or gun rights. You will see them work together on truly constitutional rights, freedom of speech, the right to protest, fighting against intrusive spying on all Americans by the NSA.
And on THAT basis, it actually makes the Rutherford Inst the enemy of the ACLU, doesn't it?
Liberator posted on 2019-09-18 11:24:13 Reply Private Reply
#31: Deckard To: Liberator (#30)
Which makes his posts here curious, to say the least.
Yup. Almost as though *some* look at a thread-derailment as their "job."
Agreed - that's pretty obvious on this and many other threads.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-18 11:46:31 Reply Private Reply
#32: Tooconservative To: Deckard (#25)
It's safe to say that over the course of their advocacy, Ruthford and ACLU have largely been on opposite sides of constitutional questions in filing their own amicus briefs before the Court.
Rutherford is clearly more conservative and libertarian than the ACLU over the last 40 years. It is no great surprise that Rutherford and ACLU do occasionally agree on a constitutional issue; it would be almost impossible for them to always disagree given that they both focus on civil rights issues.
Leave it to Gatlin to try to dig out one of those relatively few cases where Rutherford actually does agree with the ACLU which he can then use to slime Rutherford as the ACLU's prison bitch.
It's all a delusional exercise in shallow propaganda but I don't doubt that Gatlin could fool some poorly informed people with such a line of bullcrap. After all, he loves that kind of thing. Look at all the weird obscure "libertarians" he loves to publish here but which no actual libertarian has ever heard of in their entire life.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-18 13:02:49 Reply Private Reply
#33: Gatlin To: Deckard (#29)
Of course, it is.Because I always use my intelligence to rely upon common sense and good judgement which will encompass my unique ability to fully understand factual evidence.
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 13:26:11 Reply Private Reply
#34: Gatlin To: Deckard (#31)
That’s funny – REALLY funny.
I never supported the ACLU, either strongly or in any other way.
Truth be known, I have no use for the organization.
I must however admit that they occasionally do a few good things.
Realizing how much some of you idiots despised the ACLU, I would at one time or another find something the ACLU actually did good for ALL conservatives.
It was then, and only then, that I posted the articles just to rile you shitheads and get you all excited.
It always worked …
It always worked as I continued to rub your noses in your own shit because what I was posting about them WAS INDEED a good thing but none of you admitted it because you all were restricted by your intense hatred for doing so.
Ah, those were the day …
But even today, I have not lost it.
I can still pull you Paultard’s chains any time I want to and watch you dance a jig while I just laugh, laugh and continue to laugh at you …
Salute,
Gatlin
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-18 14:15:31 Reply Private Reply
#35: nolu chan To: Deckard (#0)
Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed.
Law Dictionary 2nd ed., Steven H. Gifis
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-18 16:36:24 Reply Private Reply
#36: Deckard To: Gatlin, Liberator (#34)
You got your ass kicked when it was pointed out to you repeatedly that you are dead wrong in your assessment of Rutherford - now you claim you were just trolling?
What a colossal act of desperation on your part.
Is it any wonder that you are the laughing stock of this site Tater?
Deckard posted on 2019-09-19 05:33:20 Reply Private Reply
#37: Gatlin To: Deckard (#36)
That was one of my best performances and you never suspected anything.
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-19 07:46:47 Reply Private Reply
#38: Deckard To: Gatlin (#37)
Keep telling yourself that.
Deckard posted on 2019-09-19 07:50:57 Reply Private Reply
#39: Gatlin To: Deckard (#38)
Oh, I will.
And I will keep on laughing about it.
Gatlin posted on 2019-09-19 08:03:45 Reply Private Reply
#40: Tooconservative To: Deckard (#34)
Yeah, he's obviously lost it. Clearly, he's succumbing to Biden Syndrome.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-09-19 11:51:20 Reply Private Reply