If you think there was something in that particular newspaper at the time of the incident, or that any GDN reporter throughly investigated it at any point, you don’t know the Galveston Daily News. That paper is all about local boosterism, and bowing down to the local powers that be.

It’s a screwy ‘democracy’ that we are living in when an officer can stick cocaine down your shorts then get you imprisoned for possession. Fortunatley, things this despicable are still viewed as wrong when people hear them.

That’s why I don’t think that we are beyond return. While people still have a moral compass, if things like this where exposed the establishment would garner less and less support.

But at the end of the day, we are still living under government control. The lay person will deny it, claiming that we still ‘basically’ have our freedom of speech. We only have that freedom because it’s convenient and even then with limitation. It’s just, that for the majority of the populace, (not including this family,) life under government control isn’t so bad yet, so it’s hard to detect. The path to 1984 is a gradual one…

I really hate to sound kind of like Lincoln Rockwell, but Jefferson was right in saying, ‘When the government fears it’s people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tryanny.’

The next major step will be our guns, then a serious blow will further limit free enterprise, then things like street preaching will be criminailized saying that it ‘hurts the rights of listeners who don’t want to hear it’ and that ‘it incites riots’ and that ‘it should stay in churches and political forums where people have the choice to live.

These new regs will of course be used as justification for a plethera of clever ways to limit speech. Part of me, (regrettably,) thinks that when the next step is initiated, (gun control,) a civil war would be… better than the alternative, (totalitarianism.) But I hope and pray that we turn around before then. Starting with a receptive/ethical population and followed up by the media doing it’s ‘responsibility’ to inform. (The primary reason the freedom of press was so stretched by people like Thomas Jefferson and Sam Adams)

As citizens of the United States of America, we must understand that we are the rulers of our own lives and each of us holds sovereign rights over our bodies and liberties.

We must also understand that when police officers or government officials break the law they no longer hold any authority what so ever. In the instant they act outside the law and under color of authority or jurisdiction we have a right and duty to resist.

Below are some very interesting court decisions and legal precedents in which honorable judges and juries have found the right to resist with mortal force is the right of all free citizens.

All law enforcement and government officials should be made of aware of these facts. Maybe that will raise some eyebrows instead of billy clubs and ltasers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Believe me! No one here would think for an instant that this story was a hoax. Presently, I just don’t leave the house unless I absolutely have to and the general rule here is, unless you want to have a member of you family gunned down, don’t call the cops here for anything.

How To Beat Down Black Women & Get Away With It

“Beating down Black women is the perfect pass-time hobby because there are no real consequences. The worst that can happen to you is a few weeks of paid suspension. You don’t even have to worry about some gang of vigilante Black dudes seeking out revenge. They are mostly cowards masquerading as men.”