Truck Driver Nearly Beaten to Death By Police For Not Signing Traffic Ticket

06 Jun

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops can lie to us, that they have no duty to protect us, and that they enjoy immunities that effectively place them above the law.

Cops know they can routinely abuse people and get away with it. Therefore, they just look you in the eye, lie, smirk and sometimes cave your head in with a club. Worst case for the cop? After beating up a taxpayer, a civil judgment of, say, $5 million, may be assessed against the state government to be paid by the rest of the taxpayers. When a cop pulls this crap, he should lose his house, car, savings and pension and 25% of his income for the next 10 years. Plus, he should be charged with criminal assault and jailed for 3 to 5. Minimum. The people charged with enforcing the law can’t be deemed to be above the law.

video   00:07:22


Tags: ,

34 responses to “Truck Driver Nearly Beaten to Death By Police For Not Signing Traffic Ticket

  1. Steve

    June 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    I feel bad for the guy, cops are way too aggressive these days, all in the name of funny money. But travelers have un-a-lien-able rights not to be interfered with by gov’t actors. But truck DRIVERS do not. They are acting in commerce, and hence they need to heed to the vehicle codes. He should have signed the ticket, and then had his day in court. I refused to contract with the thugs, was nearly tazed, and was kidnapped and held for ransom. Now I am facing some serious jail time for traveling freely, peacefully and honorably. When will more of us stand up to these posers and flood the courts and call them on their fraud, maybe they’ll get the message then. But hey, who wants to get off their couch, put down their diet sodas and remotes, and face the real world when the playoffs are on, and the next American idol idiot is crowned??

  2. NDT

    June 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    It’s what they do. If you pay taxes you are supporting this behaviour. The alternative is common law aka the law of the land, and it isn’t what the state tells you that it is.

  3. chef1776

    June 6, 2013 at 4:32 PM

    What do you expect. Roid rage and an IQ of less than 100. Truth is stranger than fiction.

  4. Bobby Goodwin

    June 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

    Someone in Topeka, KS was abused by a Barney Fife type cop, falsely ticketed and it cost him am=lmost $200 for fine and court cost. He found out where the cop lived, went there at the early hours of the morning and slit all four tires on the cop’s personal car. Wrong? Sure. But the bible does say Do unto others…” The cop treated him unlawfully, and cost him money, so, did the cop get what he deserved?

    • ibfreeamerican

      June 7, 2013 at 6:40 AM

      Age old wisdom, when all else fails, vote from the rooftops. (place your vote center-mass, feel free to vote twice if you can find the ammo.)
      Some day, and someday soon he Good people being abused b the system that is currently run amok, will draw their line in the sand. The police officers house will not be there when he returns from abusing citizens. The DMV workers car will be torched, the County clerks house will be burned, and for all those that are sold out to the system, The Good people will not sit idly by and be disarmed. Soon the potshots from the roof tops will begin. This is what you want, this is what you get..
      I am a peaceful man, I own no weapons. I leave my property only to travel to town for supply’s. I spend my days gardening and helping a friend recover from two strokes. the people are near the end. I see it every day, I explain the options to them every day, they are waking up. I share the following with you:

      Found on a bathroom wall somewhere in the U.S.A.

      You’ve taken over my mind. You’ve raped my thoughts with your image viruses then sold me fake cures for your own disease. Your words and pictures scream orders at me like angry prison wardens. When I cover my ears, your voices echo in my head. I hate you. When I see your billboards, your talk shows, your rock concerts and your factories, when I see the work of your twisted libidos, I want to kill you. I want to set fires, plant bombs, derail trains. I want to smash your buildings and tear at your bodies until the skin of my hands is worn to the bone. I am filled with a rage that burns my eyes.

      I don’t want to feel this way. You have done this to me. These feelings are the fruits of your multi-billion dollar sowing. And I am not alone. There are others like me out here. Every suicide, every madman, every man and woman who gets a gun and just starts shooting — these are your illegitimate children. They don’t all know what they are doing. All they know is hate for the invisible walls which you have raised around them, hate for the narrow path you have tried to make them walk. And the innocent pay in blood for your negligence.

      Remember this: My mind is big. The more you try to push me down and make me small, the greater the pressure inside me becomes. The greater the pressure, the greater the chance of an explosion. There was once a time when I felt love, but now I feel only hate and anger, and fear at what I might do. And you can tell me to “BE HAPPY,” but I know that you really mean “BE QUIET”.

      Believe me, I want to be happy. You stand in my way.

    • Michael

      June 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM

      Nice try Bobby Goodwin, but the Bible does not say “Do unto others”. Matthew 7:12 “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” In other words love your enemy.

      I am not saying the cop should not be held accountable, but there is no place for revenge.

      If you are going to quote Scripture you might want to know what it says first, and then accurately quote it.

      • Yartap

        June 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM

        Nice try Michael, if you start beating innocent people unjustly and without cause, what am I to infer about how you want me to treat you? Well then, get ready for an ass kicking with love – Michael! Who God loves he chastises; and yes – God said revenge is His; but I am to walk like God and be like God. It is a sin for me to turn a blind eye to injustice. Don’t be so quick to trust in our govt. court system, it is the refuge the police state relies upon.

  5. gary

    June 6, 2013 at 10:09 PM

    Looks like the real reason for the 2nd amendment is police brutality, and it might become necessary to exercise our unalienable right to defend ourselves while we travel free of government interference…..that’s why god invented .45acp…. bad cop! no biscuit!

    • Forster

      June 6, 2013 at 11:01 PM

      The real reason for the 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with your local police, except maybe to ensure they are properly armed in defense of your state.

      The Bill or Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment, was added to the Constitution – by the states – for the express purpose of providing a check on the federal government, period.

  6. Cody

    June 7, 2013 at 1:32 AM

    Have you read Art. 4 Sect 2, Forster. The Constitution applies to the states as well. Especially, the Bill of Rights. It’s the 14th Amendment that protects the government from it subject citizens. Read Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908)
    See if you can find how the “civil law” was able to displace the common law.

    • ibfreeamerican

      June 7, 2013 at 6:50 AM

      Though the title be shocking (get past it and pay attention) There is a fundamental question every American with the right to self defense should ask. Hopefully you have addressed this question rationally and don’t have to make a decision on the fly, and uninformed.(self preservation, the first law of nature)

      When SHOULD you shoot a cop?

      • Lex Mercatoria

        July 7, 2013 at 6:43 AM

        One cannot shoot a cop any more than one can shoot Santa Claus. One can only shoot someone wearing a funny looking outfit. A “cop” is a person, a *persona*, i.e., a state of mind.

  7. Forster

    June 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM


    Your interpretations don’t seem to have anything to do with the actual text of the Constitution.

    Firstly, Article 4, Section 2 is not about restrictions placed on the federal government (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) also applying to the states:

    “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    An American citizen (not to be confused with a United States citizen) is not a citizen of “the several states”. The phrase “citizens in the several states” refers to state citizenship.

    Since the early 1800s, the Supreme Court has ruled that Article 4, Section 2 means a given state may not discriminate against citizens of other states with regard to its privileges and immunities. The 2nd Amendment is not a grant of privilege or immunity by a state. The Bill of Rights was a way for the states to limit the federal government, not each other.

    Secondly, if anything makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states, it’s the 14th Amendment:

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

    The 14th Amendment was a way for the federal government to limit the states, which is a complete reversal of the relationship originally established by the Constitution.

    So, if you want to claim 2nd Amendment protection against your state or local government abridging your right to keep and bear arms, the 14th Amendment is the only way to do this.

    Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is completely irrelevant between you and your state and local governments.

    • Yartap

      June 7, 2013 at 7:11 PM

      Thanks Forster for your insight and your revelation of Constitutional logic.

      Question: (As I think I understand you) Are you saying that the 14th Amendment makes the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights apply to all the States of the Union? Because many understand “privileges and immunities” to mean grants from an authority/govt./state and not actual Rights granted by God. If this last line is true, then it would not apply to the 2nd Amendment.

      But, for me, I do believe that it applies to Rights recognized by the Federal Government as they apply to the states and not so much a state’s recognition of its declared rights. But the 14th Amendment does lump us all together as “citizens of the United States.”

      What are your thoughts?

    • Cody

      June 8, 2013 at 3:08 AM

      You’re pretty close Forrest, but you have a little way to run. The distinction between a US citizen (subject) and (c)itizen of a state is firmly established. All court rulings aside, there can be no similarity between Common Law Citizenship and Federal (civil) subject citizenship. That is to say, except for the confusion caused by our ignorance of contextual misnomer.

      When you read Twining, the court indicates there is a transient nature to both forms of citizenship. Yet even as far as Twining goes to elucidate the distinction between the (c)itizens of the state and US citizens. They glide by the Art 4. Sect. 2 (C)itizen of the State. Otherwise why would the court go as far as to declare “that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual?” What could possibly be the characteristics or circumstances that could make such a stark distinction? Is it possible that one moment you are a Citizen of a state, the next moment the citizen of the United States and even at another time be a (c)itizen of a State?

      The Republican Form of Government guaranteed by Art. 4 Sect. 4 and the subsequent Articles of Amendment aka the Bill of Rights ensures that “The (C)itizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of (C)itizens in the several States. This can only mean that whatever the minimum Privileges and Immunities that are enjoyed by the (C)itizens in one (S)tate are uniform throughout all the States; no exceptions. That is why the Bill of Rights reserved certain Rights in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Otherwise why would the Right to Keep and Bear Arms be prohibited from infringement with reference to the security of a free state? Were the former colonies no longer free?

      Now does the Bill of Rights limit state actions against its citizens? If you are referring to Barron v. Baltimore 32 US 243 (1833), the judges are careful not to use the word (C)itizen. I have no doubt there was a purpose behind this. Ruling in this manner created a legal fiction for them to rest this particular application of the doctrine of “stare decisis” upon. In other words the Supreme Court having prior presumed upon stare decisis used double-speak to confuse the issues of the case. Oddly, this ruling does not even fit within the jurisdictional authority of the US Supreme Court as defined in Art. 3 Sect. 2. I’d dare to say the Supreme Courts ruling in Barron may be void because of jurisdictional over-reach.

      That may seem outlandish on initial consideration, but there may be more to the inquest than meets the eye. Is it possible that within a mere 50 years the importance of knowledge of the distinction between a (C)itizen and citizen of a State began to fade from the memory of the (C)itizens of the States? Also, could the judges have been seeking an opportunity to create an atmosphere of more controversies, therefore more opportunities for attorneys to profit from the confusion? In other words are Supreme Court justices any less prone to the temptation for ill-gotten gain than the average man? Could they not, contrary to their oaths, rule against the very Constitution they swore to uphold? I can think of plenty of instances where it is so painfully obvious, there can be no question of a nefarious intent on the part of the court’s ruling. Roe vs. Wade is a case in point. Unless, of course, you believe that a civil right to abortion trumps the unAlienable Right to Life.

      Since, Roe v. Wade was ruled within the context and meaning of the 14th Amendment meaning of due process, it highlights a peculiar characteristic of US citizenship. Previously, I stated the 14th Amendment that protects the government(s) from their subject citizens. Under the scheme of laws known as the US Constitution (maybe not what you think it is) the subject citizens are chattel of the Federal government and on loan to the post-civil war States. Moreover, within this fiction the Federal government has been at a declared state of war with its citizens since 1933. From this fictitious emergency, the state and local corporate jurisdictions have been able to do pretty much whatever they want to do to US citizens with impunity.

      That ruling forces us to return to the original doctrine of the country. So, then there is the matter of the 3rd (actually 1st) form of (C)itizenship of Article 4. Sect. 2. This is the Holy Grail of (C)itizenship. This is the (C)itizenship of the Founders and our birthright. Our ignorance of what it is that constitutes this form and status of (C)itizenship is the barrier between us as mere subject chattel (persons, humans, individual, animals etc) and being the Sovereigns we were created to be.

      Insofar as your assertion of the 2nd Amendment having no authority within the states except via the 14th Amendment. That again may well depend upon the “character and circumstances of the individual”. Art. 2 Sect. 3 of the Arizona Constitution establishes the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land. Art 2 Sect 1 establishes “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Further, Art. 2 Sect 26 states ” The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired,…” It is clear then, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a Right of the people of Arizona.

      You may want to read McDonald v Chicago. It is about the 2nd Amendment and it references Twining vs. New Jersey.

  8. Anthony Clifton

    June 8, 2013 at 6:24 AM

    the word government for Americans was based on a Christian foundation….

    the Messiah for the Children of Israel…required the inhabitants in HIS KINGDOM…

    As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; –

    And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth…..

    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,

    Now, in a chilling real life version of the plotline from “The Net”, it turns out that the majority of the firewalls on US corporate computer systems are provided by just one company….

    Checkpoint Systems, which like Amdocs, Comverse Infosys, and Odigo, is headquartered in Israel.

    The Prince of Peace . . .is not BIG BROTHER…prism – surveillance state

    be a peace maker….HARVEST some TARES….interpreted means….

    TELL THE TRUTH [ JOHN 8:44] … to others who have only heard lies..

    and are literally DOUBLEMINDED….


  9. Forster

    June 8, 2013 at 12:24 PM


    It is generally recognized that the 14th Amendment gives all US citizens a claim on the protections of the Bill of Rights. This comes from the text of the amendment itself. I see what you mean about the Bill of Rights not being intended as a list of privileges and immunities, rather the rights it refers to are given by God. In the context of the 14th Amendment, however, the Bill of Rights is converted to a list of privileges and immunities.

    You asked if the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states of the Union. My answer is: probably not. As described by Adask, the 14th Amendment’s “United States” – which appears to be a corporation created by Congress – is not the same as the Union of the several states. A different entity, to be sure, though I’d say calling it a different country is going a bit beyond the evidence.

    The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the federal government for the protection of state citizens (those whom the Congress was hired to represent). I would not say the Bill of Rights is a general proclamation of rights. Nor do I find anything to suggest that the states meant to impose these limitations on themselves. This would be have been done on a state-by-state, rather than a collective, basis.

    See also:

    Wikipedia article on the very telling pre-14th Amendment case of Barron v. Baltimore (includes links to the text of the ruling)

    This is yet another confirmation that only the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local governments.

    • Yartap

      June 8, 2013 at 1:29 PM

      Cody and Forester,

      I do appreciate ya’ll’s input and discussion of the subject matter. Let me input, for ya’ll’s opinions, a hypothetical question which would involve the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

      We know the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment’s states the people have a right to keep and bear arms, without infringement. We know that this is a restriction placed upon the Federal government and not the state of the Union.

      Now, in the state of Georgia, its constitution has a 2nd Amendment (paragraph VIII, Georgia Bill of Rights) which states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, without infringement, “but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.” This “power to prescribe” is the focal point of discussion.

      With the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in play, would the state of Georgia be forced to remove that “power to prescribe” how arms are borne, so as, to comply with the U.S. Bill of Rights under the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th? So that, the restriction placed upon the Federal (strictly without infringement) be placed upon the states.

      Ya’ll’s thoughts, please. Thanks!

      • Cody

        June 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        Hey Yartap,
        Absent a working legal definition of the word “borne” it would be hard to say precisely. My Black’s 4th doesn’t have a definition of “borne.” in it. It would also depend on which Georgia Constitution you are referring to.

        On the other hand, it is my firm conviction that the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are both restrictive of Federal action and proscriptive to the states to ensure uniformity of minimum due process and protection of unAlienable Rights. This would be true especially in light of the concepts of Rights and Duties as declared in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, the Bill of Rights is a statement of minimum enumerated Rights for all Americans. Those Americans being the Art. 4 Sect. 2 (C)itizens or those we refer to as (S)overeigns. It also harmonizes the relationship of the Supreme Court as it’s jurisdiction is described in Art. 3 Sect. 2. Could there be any other reason except to ensure (guarantee) that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God would be the source of all authority throughout the land?

        This falls outside of the popular two-dimensional concept of ‘citizenship’ that guides the thinking of most within the Freedom/Patriot/Liberty/Sovereign movement. I’m saying there are at least 3 forms or classifications of citizenship within the several states. One is absolutely foreign in nature to the states. Incidentally, the “civil law” is foreign within the several states.

        1. Art. 4 Sect. 2 (C)itizens of a State
        2. (c)itizens of a State (subordinate in status to Art. 4 Sect. 2)
        3. (c)itizens of the United States (dregs of citizenship)

        If Al’s “state vs. State” theory is correct, it is possible even more variants of citizenship could be constructed or derived from the established versions above. Also, since 3 classifications of citizenship exist it’s not even a stretch to say (c)itizen of a State is somewhat if not greatly less sovereign than a (C)itizen. Therefore it would be completely reasonable that the Bill of Rights may not be operative against State action with regard to (c)itizens of a State. On the other hand, since the court dances around (C)itizenship we are left to judge for ourselves if (C)itizens are actually entitled to more respect from the government than a (c)itizen of any kind.

        The 14th Amendment has caused a lot of confusion in the realm of law, but most importantly our minds. In Twining v New Jersey the Supreme Court states

        “that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.”

        Now given the condition of our education system, the fact we are trained not to think analytically, the extent to which judges and lawyers use words of art to confuse and our reliance upon the media for information, just how is it we are supposed to determine exactly what an individual’s “characteristics and circumstances” are? Trust an attorney? Judge? Politician?

        It then becomes our duty to be appropriately informed. Then we inform our families (children especially). We then have to inform anyone who will listen. Just like the disciples of the Lord were commanded we have to be able to give an answer to every man.

        I’m not sure how much more simple the message can be. The Declaration of Independence laid out the legal arguments against government tyranny, The Constitution established the Federal government and it guaranteed a “Republican Form of Government” to every state of the Union. The Constitution tells the government what it can do; the Bill of Rights tells the government what it can’t do. If the Bill of Rights was not operative on the states then there would have been no need for them to ratify it in the first place.

        With the legal foundation of the Declaration, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights (The Northwest Ordinance fits in, too ) is the model of the Republican Form of Government for all states. These documents were written in plain English to enable us to prevent the abuses the Founders warned against.

        With that warning in mind, it is the duty of the People to enforce their Constitutions upon their governments by virtue of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not create the Rights, just like the Declaration of Independence didn’t create any Rights; they are inherent as a result of our Creator endowing us with them. The fact that it’s our duty to enforce the Constitutions is made plain by the actions of governments refusing to do their due diligence with regard to “protecting” our Rights. As long as we trust others with what’s ours we are certain to be robbed of it.

        The best understanding of the Gospel comes from the plain reading of the Bible. Why would we expect any thing less from a plain reading of the Country’s foundational legal documents? Words can be formed into traps. A greater knowledge of those same words creates keys to unlock them. Liberty is a confusing topic to us because we are too trusting or too lazy to learn how the keys work. If we want the keys to the Kingdom, we have to prove we know how to use them.

        So, if the Georgia Constitution says “The Constitution of the United States is the Law of the Land” like it does in the Arizona Constitution, then the 2nd Amendment is the unqualified law with regard to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Whether it protects you or not is for you to decide.

      • Yartap

        June 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

        Thanks Cody for your input and knowledge of the subject matter. It’s funny, but with the discussion of citizenship, I looked up what the Georgia’s Constitution had to say about it. And to my surprise, the Ga. Const. Says the following:

        “All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of this General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and immunities due to such citizenship.” (Paragraph VII, Ga. Const., Bill of Rights).

        If “citizens of the United States” has the same meaning as found in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, then my state of Georgia has made everyone just a 14th Amendment citizen/animal. So, I’m not a citizen of Georgia nor can be a citizen. I’m just a citizen of the Georgia Republic.

  10. Cody

    June 9, 2013 at 10:54 PM

    Thanks for the props. I doubt that I really know that much. I can only speculate at best. I have to thank Al and the Antishyster for helping to open my mind. Also, a fella from Orange County, California named Bill McCarty was instrumental in showing me Twining vs. New Jersey. It’s a powerful case. They covered much of the legal reasoning for why US citizens get beat so severely around the head neck and shoulders for objections based on the Bill of Rights.

    For example they go as far as to clarify

    “The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the State, and, in effect, the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516),

    Page 211 U. S. 99

    and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment. The discussion in that case ought not to be repeated. All the arguments for the other view were considered and answered, the authorities were examined and analyzed, and the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because those rights were not within the meaning of the clause “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    So, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

    Insofar as your native Citizenship in the Republic of Georgia, I’d say you are correct and that would be as close to the Art. 4 Sect. 2 (C)itizenship as you can get. I’d also say that if you had to present your evidence in court, they would have a much harder time disproving your (C)itizenship than you would have proving it.

    On final note on the Supremes, as of late they’ve been pretty busy filling in the gaps left open by Congress. They have actually been pretty sympathetic to the plight of the slaves. You might be interested in reading McDonald vs.Chicago. The Supreme Court has “incorporated” the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment due process clause.
    You need to read the whole thing. It’s full of eye-popping information for those willing to learn.

    So, as imperfect as the incorporation process is, we owe them some thanks on for that. As I see it the 2nd Amendment was written to give the People a chance to figure out what to do in case of emergency. Hopefully, we will never have to use it.

    • Yartap

      June 10, 2013 at 12:13 PM

      Thank so much! Cody,

      You have given great information to me to set me straighter on the path of knowledge. I may not like the path, but I now know the truth of the path.

      I, like many, have a great dis-trust of the 5 to 4 Gang and their legislative abilities. I am torn between liking or disliking the Chicago decision. I like the idea of state’s rights against an intruding Federal govt., and dislike the centralization of power to the Federal govt. But, I like the idea of general God given rights to all, because the state govt.’s have become so intrusive, also.

      My question is this: Should we fear the 14th Amendment and why? It was created before 1933.

  11. William D. Simpson

    June 10, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    Twice police have violated my civil rights unjustly and both times I defended myself. I was beaten and hospitalized first time and beaten and tazed twice the other. Neither time did I spend a night in jail and in both incidents the judge found me not guilty of all charges and the cases dismissed. And no charges could be brought against the thugs with badges.

    That said…..if any other law enforcement officer ever commits a criminal act against me they will never do so against anyone else again. Now I am prepared!

    Not all police are like this. But for those who are, by law, the victim or a citizen witness of the criminal act of police brutality can and should react with lethal force. Killing a police officer is a terrible thing to consider, but the citizenry’s fear of the consequences is why police have no fear of us.

    • Adask

      June 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

      If I recall correctly, Ephesians 6:12 declares roughly that “Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and power and rulers of darkness . . . .” If our battle is not against flesh and blood, then it appears that we should not “fight” by killing flesh and blood. We should instead seek another way to battle our adversaries on a more spiritual or perhaps political level. I recognize that dissidents may one day be forced to engage in violence against the gov-co, but I do not relish or recommend that violence.

  12. Carlton

    June 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    Don’t base too many shaky conclusions on Twining v. New Jersey before noticing it was overturned in Malloy v. Hogan in 1964.

    The ruling in the latter case determined that the 14th Amendment is indeed what makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states.

    • Adask

      June 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

      Are the “states” referenced in the Malloy v Hogan case clearly States of the Union?

      • Carlton

        June 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        I couldn’t say offhand, though I see where you’re going.

        It’s possible that both Twining v. New Jersey and Malloy v. Hogan refer to territorial states, since both rulings occurred after the 14th Amendment was passed.

    • Cody

      June 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

      It is a mistaken belief that Malloy vs Hogan overturned Twining. There exists no such declaration in Malloy. Further, you need to read the historical explanation of the 14th Amendment by Justice Thomas in McDonald v. Chicago, 2009.

      In Malloy, the Supreme Court reverses the lower courts decision. It does not declare that the 5th Amendment is “fully incorporated” into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. If you can, find a Shepard’s Report on Twining that supports your statement.

      Malloy v Hogan (1964)

      In McDonald the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled the 2nd Amendment IS fully incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

      McDonald v. Chicago (2009)

  13. Cody

    June 10, 2013 at 10:33 PM

    What are your thoughts on this, Al?

    Luke 22: 35-38
    35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [e]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [f]whoever has no sword is to sell his [g]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [h]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

    • Adask

      June 11, 2013 at 12:32 AM

      Hard to say. The Christ is telling them to have some money (gold or silver, I presume) and to be armed, but not overly armed. And while He tells them to be armed, there is no record of the Christ instructing them to use their swords. I don’t know if the arms are merely for show, of if the Christ realizes that he is about to be removed from this earth and in His absence, He won’t be able to protect his Apostles–so they’ll have to learn how to protect themselves.

      Perhaps the Christ’s purpose of ordering his disciples to have two swords was to take them along to the Garden of Gethsemane where he would soon be arrested. I.e., if the Christ’s followers were armed when the soldiers came to arrest the Christ, it would be fair to suppose that his disciples could have engaged in bloody conflict with the soldiers–if the Christ had ordered them to do so. If they’d been unarmed, they’d have had no chance to resist the Christ’s arrest even if He’d ordered them to do so. But–because they were armed and could have fought, but didn’t–we might conclude that the Christ thereby demonstrated that He essentially “volunteered” for His arrest and subsequent crucifixion.

      Do you see my point? Even though His disciples were armed and could’ve fought to free Him, the Christ demonstrated that He would not “pass this cup”. He accepted his fate and the sacrifice God required of Him.

      Does that seem plausible to you?

      • Cody

        June 11, 2013 at 2:02 AM

        I like it, Al. Thanks for a thoughtful answer.

        My view is that since the Lord said he fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, the requirements of righteousness for salvation are secure. I think if a believer thinks he has to defend himself it is his right to do so. The Old Testament is full of stories about Abraham’s descendants having to kill for survival. Sometimes they killed unjustly. Either way, sometimes the spiritual battle manifests self in the physical realm. I don’t think the Lord would have us disarm and be defenseless against those that seek to harm us and attempt to destroy the message of the Gospel.

        I think Hebrews 11 covers this very well.

      • Adask

        June 11, 2013 at 3:30 AM

        Genesis 1:26-28 makes clear that we are all made in God’s image and therefore not “animals”. Genesis 9:6 makes clear that we should not kill another man because he, too, is made in God’s image. But, just as I must respect the fact that everyone else is made in God’s image and therefore we have a duty to not kill or even injure others, I must also respect the fact that I am made in God’s image. By virtue of my own body being made in God’s image, I have a duty to defend and protect the personal “image of God” (my body) with which I have been entrusted from from assault by others. Self-defense is not merely a rights; it’s a duty for those who are made in God’s image. It’s a fine line trying to decide how much force or even lethal force I am entitled to use in defense of my own “image of God”. But I see no reason why–in response to an unprovoked attack–I cannot quickly escalate to marshalling a lethal defense against someone else’s “image of God” if he is threatening to badly injure of even kill my “image of God”.

        But it’s still a “fine line”. It’s easy to imagine a man who might be looking for an “unprovoked attack” as a justification to kill someone. He might skillfully argue to a judge and jury that he acted only in self-defense (of his own “image of God”) and fool them into declaring him not guilty, when murder was, in fact, his intention. But the ability to fool your neighbors with a claim of “self-defense” will not suffice to fool God. He will know if you actually engaged in murder or self-defense and will judge you accordingly.

  14. Cody

    June 11, 2013 at 9:17 PM

    No argument here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s