Activist: "but this is America!" Cop: "It ain't no more!"

[GunnyFreedom]

Apologis if already posted, I did not see it. RPF tends to be a real newsbreaker.

You MUST watch this insane vid of a cop:

YouTube - Officer Does Not Like anti-Obama Poster: "It ain't [America] no more, OK?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg)

This is one, I think, that should go viral. Here it is, just what we've been sayong, in a nutshell, and straight from the horse's mouth.

[Kludge]

"Wesley Cheeks -- Wesley Cheeks: Fascist!"

"Whateva.."

lmao...

Edit: You think "Fascist" might be a code word.......? :eek:

[youngbuck]

At least he wasn't tased.

[GunnyFreedom]

They don't need to to the public displays of forced state compliance so much anymore. Now people really do believe that they will use them, so they are simply more likely to obey. :(

[UnReconstructed]

At least he wasn't tased.

word

[pcosmar]

"It ain't no more!"

Let the reality of that sink in. :mad:

[acptulsa]

"It ain't no more!"

Let the reality of that sink in. :mad:

Been there, done that. And he's right. Still recognizable, like an abandoned building is still recognizable, but I'm not as free as I was when I was young. And I'm damned unhappy about it.

[BillyDkid]

"It ain't no more!"

Let the reality of that sink in. :mad:Or "I can charge you with whatever I want to charge you with." Good God in heaven.

[LittleLightShining]

Unbelievable.

[polomertz]

wow

[raystone]

that will go viral

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"It ain't no more!"

Let the reality of that sink in. :mad:

Anger follows persecution. Give it some more time :).

[bossman068410]

YouTube - 4409 -- Phoenix Pirate threatens Arrest over Vaccine Sign! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQnLjLTEKoE)

MORE of the Insanity

[GunnyFreedom]

This is the direct and overt chilling of free speech. Is it time to act.

[jkr]

wOw

if it "aint no mo", what IS it?

but it has a picture on it!

i am done with this shit

[Deborah K]

Holy Batsh&t! That cop doesn't even know the Constitution that he's supposed to be defending! First of all, a public school is government property, which means it is tax payer funded and falls directly under the limits of the Constitution, which means anyone on its grounds have protected free speech. NO laws in the state or the county where that school is can supercede the federal law on this matter!!

Those cops are lying, ignorant bastards!

[Working Poor]

chilling

[pcosmar]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/04/16/hulk460.jpg

" You won't like me when I'm angry" .

:mad:

[qh4dotcom]

YouTube - Officer Does Not Like anti-Obama Poster: "It ain't [America] no more, OK?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg)

[Reason]

50 bucks says this gets played about 394802349237529345230420 times on fox news tomorrow.

[..PAUL4PRES..]

The hour is getting late fellow Americans. I hope you have taken the necessary steps to prepare. Good luck all.
:mad:


YouTube - Officer Does Not Like anti-Obama Poster: "It ain't [America] no more, OK?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg)

[..PAUL4PRES..]

Things are getting down right scary folks. Im at a loss of words.

[Uriel999]

fucking traitor, this is truly getting insane.

[..PAUL4PRES..]

fucking traitor, this is truly getting insane.

I want to cry but I cant because Im so angry. Looks like another sleepless night.

[buffalokid777]

one more unamerican piece of filth who needs to be tried by jury for treason and hung for his sentence, any person who doesn't support free speech is a treasonous enemy of the USA I may disagree with what you say but I support your right to say it. But if you try to stop others from voicing their opinion, you are a traitor to the constitution.

That is American. Getting those scum who have a double standard would do this country well.

[idiom]

Is he police? or just security?

[LibertyEagle]

Looks like police.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

These people do not even try to hide it anymore....

This is Reston,VA... can we start a letter writing campaign to city officials to have this guy taken off of the force?

[Pod]

These people do not even try to hide it anymore....

This is Reston,VA... can we start a letter writing campaign to city officials to have this guy taken off of the force?

You are only saying this because you are racist. It is obvious that by "these people" you mean blacks. :p

[BlackTerrel]

This is posted by the side of the video:


I feel sorry for Officer Cheeks. He, like many African-Americans are being played by the racist Obama administration. Wake up people. They used to want you only for your votes, but now with the huge hispanic illegals pouring in they won't even need you for that. Watch those inner city abortion clinics get stimulated though. Democrat and church leaders sure seem to have time and money to build those.

Google "margaret sangar black children eugenics" (no quotes) and find out what's REALLY behind those Democrat abortuariums run by Planned Parenthood. Democrat eugenicists like Rahm Emanuel and his brother Zeke "Dr. Mengele" Emanuel and John Holdren and George Soros and Mr. Abortion himself, Barack Obama can't kill enough black babies. The ovens are fired up. Wake up people.

The guy who posted it has some issues himself.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

This is posted by the side of the video:



The guy who posted it has some issues himself.

Sounded like the guy was pretty much spot on with his assessment to me. Are you trying to say that the man who took this video is a racist for pointing out how blacks have been taken for a ride right along with whites? Is he racist for pointing out facts about Margaret Sanger and her desires for minority populations?

BT... you really need to get off the race card. I would love to see you post something in a thread that had nothing to do with race or where you did not interject something about race. You are not a victim just because you are black.

[angelatc]

Is he police? or just security?

School security.

[coyote_sprit]

He said he took an oath to the constitution though. Do they make school security guards do that?

[Pod]

He said he took an oath to the constitution though. Do they make school security guards do that?

LOLZ.

It is funny to see him try to make stuff up on the fly. The supposed problem is that the poster has a picture on it LOL. And he is going to charge him with "trespassing".

A poster with a picture on it = get charged with trespassing. Makes perfect sense. :D

As if we didn`t know his real equasion was:

An anti-Obama poster = get browbeaten.

[LittleLightShining]

bump

[LittleLightShining]

School security.

Ok, I hope this is true. I noticed he said it was "school board property."

[Conza88]

You don't have a right to "freedom of speech."

You have a right to property. The problem? The police service is a monopoly. Don't give a fck about the customers (citizens), why the hell should they? As far as they are concerned they are the enemy.

This guy has a right to his sign. The problem? Public property. Get rid of it. Let the true, just, property owners set the rules...

In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person’s right to his own body, his personal liberty,, is a property right in his own person as well as a “human right.” But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of “public policy” or the “public good.” As I wrote in another work:


Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.2

In short, a person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. There is no extra “right of free speech” or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case.

Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.”3 And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.4

Stopping there... but the epicness continues with many more arguments to support the above. http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp

[Objectivist]

He said he took an Oath to uphold the Constitution, so what AmeriKa are we living in?

[Mini-Me]

You don't have a right to "freedom of speech."

You have a right to property. The problem? The police service is a monopoly. Don't give a fck about the customers (citizens), why the hell should they? As far as they are concerned they are the enemy.

This guy has a right to his sign. The problem? Public property. Get rid of it. Let the true, just, property owners set the rules...

In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person’s right to his own body, his personal liberty,, is a property right in his own person as well as a “human right.” But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of “public policy” or the “public good.” As I wrote in another work:


Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.2

In short, a person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. There is no extra “right of free speech” or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case.

Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.”3 And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.4

Stopping there... but the epicness continues with many more arguments to support the above. http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp

That said, as it stands today, the school board rests on public property, and you of all people should never recognize the school board's claim to that property, right? ;) After all, the government acquires its property by force, so they certainly have no right to forcibly remove anyone. Nobody really knows who the legitimate property owner is in this instance (proportional shares to whoever paid the tax to fund the government purchase? ;)), nor would there really be a legitimate way to homestead it since it's already developed and occupied.

This raises two questions (and I'm sure you have an answer to the first). First, how would you go about privatizing this property? My best guess would be selling it to the highest bidder in a genuine auction and repaying taxpayers, though that's still subject to manipulation. Second, considering that's not going to happen anytime soon, how should ordinary people treat the property in the meantime? Personally, if government-run property is masquerading as public property, I think we should treat it as though it's exactly what it's pretending to be: The commons.

[LibertyEagle]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[pcosmar]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, but that was in America.
That was true at one time. But as is apparent , by MANY reports.



"It ain't no more!"

Let the reality of that sink in. :mad:

[Conza88]

That said, as it stands today, the school board rests on public property, and you of all people should never recognize the school board's claim to that property, right? ;) After all, the government acquires its property by force, so they certainly have no right to forcibly remove anyone.

I wasn't defending them if that is the point you are getting at ;). But yes, precisely. Now, what I was doing, was offering the CORRECT angle to go at this, if you actually want to solve the problems - that is. You know, I was striking at the root, "free speech" is a friggin' leaf. (Not even a branch)

Sure if you want to use it as rhetoric in an age of manufactured consent, by all means. But this is a ronpaulforum, our standards are higher. Well, they should be. :)


Nobody really knows who the legitimate property owner is in this instance (proportional shares to whoever paid the tax to fund the government purchase? ;)), nor would there really be a legitimate way to homestead it since it's already developed and occupied.

Well it depends, look at the land titles history. If you can prove the government stole your land and it was legitimately yours (homesteaded it), then you should get it back. But if there is no history, or no-one can prove it, then when you de-socialize the state - it goes to those who first claim it. In essence, those who work there.


This raises two questions (and I'm sure you have an answer to the first). First, how would you go about privatizing this property? My best guess would be selling it to the highest bidder in a genuine auction and repaying taxpayers, though that's still subject to manipulation.

How and How Not to Desocialize by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard143.html)


# Introduction
# How Not to Desocialize
* Do Not Phase In
* Do Not Crack Down on Black Markets
* Do Not Confiscate the People's Money
* Do Not Increase Taxes
* Government Firms Owning Each Other is Not Privatization
# How to Desocialize
* Legalize the Black Market
* Drastically Lower All Taxes
* Abolish the Government's Ability to Create Money
* Fire the Bureaucracy
* Privatize or Abolish Government Operations
* Principles of Privatization
# Conclusion

"A third commonly suggested route to privatization deserves to be rejected out of hand: that the government sell all its assets to the public at auction, to the highest bidder. One grave flaw in this approach is that since the government owns virtually all the assets, where would the public get the money to purchase them, except at a very low price that would be tantamount to free distribution?

But another, even more important flaw hasn't been sufficiently stressed: why does the government deserve to own the revenue from the sale of these assets? After all, one of the main reasons for desocialization is that the government does not deserve to own the productive assets of the country. But if it does not deserve to own the assets, why in the world does it deserve to own their monetary value? And we do not even consider the question: What is the government supposed to do with the funds after they have been received?[8] "

How would you go about privatizing this property? I'd allow homesteading of it. i.e the government does not have legitimate claim, it is reneged. Those who first claim, or use such item will own it. This may seem chaotic. But it is a kind of reset button, it will be for a short period imo... but not for long, not when the market begins to take over it will naturally iron out the problems.

The individuals who suddenly acquire this property are either going to want to get rid of it, or will continue with its useage. The market will sort it out.

Alternatively, make that individual school a firm / company. The problem with say, a monopolistic organization because of government.. then auctioning the monopoly, to a private org is the massive bloated company above market level remains.. Not cool.


Second, considering that's not going to happen anytime soon, how should ordinary people treat the property in the meantime? Personally, if government-run property is masquerading as public property, I think we should treat it as though it's exactly what it's pretending to be: The commons.

How should they treat the property in the mean time? The 'property owner' is illegitimate. Use the constitution for rhetorical purposes / arguments sake with the retarded folks out there. Great article by Rothbard about the problem with public property. Someone always loses. The government just chooses who.

For eg. does the government close down the public roads near the football stadium? Does it make the trip easier for those going to the game? Well then it makes traffic jams for those who aren't.

Does the government allow protesting on that public street? Down it close it down for a march? Or does it leave it open?

Problem? Government. Simple. :D

[pcosmar]

I wasn't defending them if that is the point you are getting at ;). But yes, precisely. Now, what I was doing, was offering the CORRECT angle to go at this, if you actually want to solve the problems - that is. You know, I was striking at the root, "free speech" is a friggin' leaf. (Not even a branch)
<snip>

Problem? Government. Simple. :D
Your premise is flawed from the start.
This is not private Property, Property rights DO NOT APPLY.
This is A PUBLIC PLACE.
Owned by the Public. The man was on his OWN property. and a "servant" was giving unlawful orders
The servants have forgotten their place.

[Conza88]

Your premise is flawed from the start.

No, it's not actually. My premises are sound. Which one were your specifically referring to, as being wrong? :confused:


This is not private Property

Yeah, I know... that's the problem.


Property rights DO NOT APPLY.
This is A PUBLIC PLACE.
Owned by the Public. The man was on his OWN property. and a "servant" was giving unlawful orders
The servants have forgotten their place.

Your premise is flawed. "We the people" are NOT the GOVERNMENT.

"We" don't tax ourselves. "We" don't create stimulus packages because we think we're worth it.

The Jews didn't commit suicide. The proper class analysis is RULERS VS RULED. The parasitic and unproductive class vs the PRODUCTIVE class.

One uses coercion and the threat of violence. One uses voluntarism and non violence.

One is illegitimate, one is not. ;)

And I think you misunderstood my conclusion... the dude had a right to show his sign, it was his property. And since no-one legitimately own the "public (STATE) owned property" he legitimately, do what he wants on it - i.e not violating natural law.

It just depends if the authorities will violate his natural rights, with their positivist bullshit laws. Those who massacred the Jews in Nazi Germany were following the law prescribed by the Third Reich. The defacto and legal rights are secondary, you can use them i.e ohh look the positivist laws say you can't do that.. but what does the state care? You can't limit it's power, it's got a monopoly - it's the final arbiter. :)

[pcosmar]

Your premise is flawed. "We the people" are NOT the GOVERNMENT.

"We" don't tax ourselves. "We" don't create stimulus packages because we think we're worth it.

The Jews didn't commit suicide. The proper class analysis is RULERS VS RULED. The parasitic and unproductive class vs the PRODUCTIVE class.

One uses coercion and the threat of violence. One uses voluntarism and non violence.

One is illegitimate, one is not.

This is not going to change till people get over this BULLSHIT of Non Violence.

TBTB are perfectly willing to use violence. They prove that over and over again.
They need to be met head on, by the greater force of the people.

The LAW is on our side.


�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.


�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 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).

The servants have forgotten their place.

[Conza88]

This is not going to change till people get over this BULLSHIT of Non Violence.

TBTB are perfectly willing to use violence. They prove that over and over again.
They need to be met head on, by the greater force of the people.

The LAW is on our side.

Why's it bullshit?

Ending Tyranny Without Violence by Murray N. Rothbard (www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html)

It's possible, just unlikely - do you government propaganda, public education system, fourth estate etc.

You have a right to defend yourself and your property. If I was to bother to be clearer, it would be "against the INITIATION of violence".


The servants have forgotten their place.

Have you forgot that everyone follows their self interest? Have you forgotten what type of people are attracted to power? Have you forgot that power corrupts? You don't think those type of people would use power for their own gain? lol

The only people they "served" was themselves.

[pcosmar]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a very good reason that the 2nd Amendment followed the First.
It is the teeth.
It is the Enforcement.

It is not just about owning arms
It is about using them.

[UCFGavin]

any ramifications of this? i didn't real the whole thread, but was his station contacted or anything?

[tonesforjonesbones]

Public property, parks, school board...IS OUR PROPERTY..we pay for it. I have had fights with city hall over the buracracy just getting use of public parks. You have to pay a fee, it has to be approved by the commissioners etc...they won't let you use the electricity, etc..so I went to the city manager..this was actually about our Ron Paul freedom fest during the campaign. I had our talk radio guy and our newspaper editor attending...and I told the city manager..believe me, we had the park and electricity. I told them the public park is a PUBLIC square...they are not allowed to run off the homeless who live at the park...but the tax paying citizens have to jump thru hoops? You have to stand UP to these idiots and remind them we are the boss. TONES

[hamilton1049]

School security.

Security cannot charge or arrest anyone for anything. And they do not take the oath.

[LittleLightShining]

Wesley Cheeks works for Fairfax County School Security.

His supervisor is Carl Davis, Mr. Davis's number is 571-423-1200 571-423-1200

24-Hour Dispatch/Call Center 703-764-2400 703-764-2400
Main Office 703-658-3760 703-658-3760


Jim McLain, Security Coordinator
Jim.McLain at fcps[dot]edu
703-658-3769

Lt. Daniel Townsend, Fairfax County Police/School Liaison Commander
Daniel.Townsend at cps [dot]edu
703-658-3707 703-658-3707

[LT for the Truth]

I just saw this vid. :eek: I will be making some phone calls immediately. I got unlimited minutes on the weekend & I'm about to use em :D

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Let's get on it folks!!!!


Wesley Cheeks works for Fairfax County School Security.

His supervisor is Carl Davis, Mr. Davis's number is 571-423-1200 571-423-1200

24-Hour Dispatch/Call Center 703-764-2400 703-764-2400
Main Office 703-658-3760 703-658-3760


Jim McLain, Security Coordinator
Jim.McLain at fcps[dot]edu
703-658-3769

Lt. Daniel Townsend, Fairfax County Police/School Liaison Commander
Daniel.Townsend at cps [dot]edu
703-658-3707 703-658-3707

[devil21]

Security cannot charge or arrest anyone for anything. And they do not take the oath.

Not true. In that area, school security are sworn county cops. They just wear different uniforms and drive different cars. They call them "School Resource Officers". Orwellian aint it?

Im tempted to trot out my usual "Nothing new in the Police State of Virginia" line but it seems they no longer have a monopoly on police acting like fascists anymore. But trust me, anyone from that area (Northern VA, home to most defense contractors, politicians, etc.) is well versed in such douchebaggery from the police. Been going on a mighty long time there...

[BlackTerrel]

Sounded like the guy was pretty much spot on with his assessment to me. Are you trying to say that the man who took this video is a racist for pointing out how blacks have been taken for a ride right along with whites? Is he racist for pointing out facts about Margaret Sanger and her desires for minority populations?

BT... you really need to get off the race card. I would love to see you post something in a thread that had nothing to do with race or where you did not interject something about race. You are not a victim just because you are black.

I didn't bring up race. It's an issue since the video that this thread is about talks about race. Should I avoid the issue altogether?

I don't think the guy making the video is a racist and I didn't say that. He is, however, saying that Obama and his administration are out to kill black babies. That seems a bit excessive.

[devil21]

I didn't bring up race. It's an issue since the video that this thread is about talks about race. Should I avoid the issue altogether?

I don't think the guy making the video is a racist and I didn't say that. He is, however, saying that Obama and his administration are out to kill black babies. That seems a bit excessive.

The history of Planned Parenthood's founder is pretty clearly documented. Planned Parenthood is a big Obama supporting group. It's not necessarily a causal relationship but it doesn't take a genius to see the implications.

[Vessol]

dont feed the trolls ^^

[Todd]

Poor Police officer was just telling the truth :(