The absurdities the New York City government is capable of seem to have no bounds. In February of this year, the NYPD shot Ramarley Graham, a teenager, for attempting to flush some marijuana down his grandmother’s toilet. Earlier this year, NYC banned food donations to the homeless (I shit you not – read it for yourself). A New York health board recently banned large sodas. There has also been talk of a salt ban.
If we go back just a little longer, you will recall that New York is the heartless city that ticketed people for playing chess in a public park, and fined a broke man $2,000 for collecting cans and bottles for recycling. Yes – they really are that cruel – the man was broke and was collecting trash to recycle and earn some change, and they fined him $2,000 for it. A poor man was removing trash free of charge, to both the benefit of the public and himself, but fortunately, the magnanimous and omniscient government came in to save us all from the dangers of unlicensed trash pickup. Courtesy of Mayor Bloomberg.
Naive and delusional Americans everywhere may hail these measures – violent deterrence against drugs, bad foods, bad drinks, unlicensed trash collectors, and chess-playing – as desirable and appropriate in the furtherance of good health. However, the reality is that New York City is essentially a police state which uses force to demand obedience and inject its vile influence into every aspect of New Yorkers’ lives.
These edicts are not mere suggestions or awareness campaigns to encourage people to live a healthier, better, or moral lifestyle. If they were merely suggestions, they wouldn’t need to be laws, which, even if they begin with warnings or fines, ultimately are backed by violence or the threat thereof. If you don’t pay the fines, you will receive more fines. If you continue to fail to pay fines, you face arrest and imprisonment. If you resist arrest and/or imprisonment, you will be summarily executed. Unless you deny the reality of this legal system, it is indisputable that every single law is backed by violence or the threat thereof.
If laws were simply helpful guides, police would not write tickets or arrest people; they would tap people on the shoulder, look them sternly in the eye, and gently remind them that consuming too much sugar, smoking weed, and/or collecting trash is not appropriate/healthy/desirable, and then walk away. The city wouldn’t need very many policemen – just a few with maybe a bullhorn or two, to walk around reminding people that they should be healthy.
But because these are laws we are talking about, the situation is quite different. With this plethora of senseless laws, comes the need for a plethora of enforcement intrusions and violence. When a police force is given enough power to intrude on countless aspects of peoples’ lives, they will not stop at the law. They most certainly will abuse their powers as they please.
Let me give you the example of the deluded liberal – they are for marijuana legalization, but probably support the ban on sugary drinks and all kinds of other nanny-state laws. They would love to see police rip Big Gulps out of people’s hands at gun point, but think everyone should be smoking a doobie on a bench in Central Park. However, you can’t have it both ways. A police force powerful enough to stop you from drinking soda is powerful enough to intrude on other aspects of private life, whether legal or not. For instance, in the Big Apple, marijuana is technically decriminalized, but 140 people are still being arrested for it per day.
But let’s not let the equally asinine conservatives off easy either. They love to see police molesting people to look for turrrists and drug dealers. They literally think police should be busting into peoples’ apartments to stop them from having butt sex, and generally support a strong police state, so they are equally part of the problem.
40,000 laws are passed a year and there are so many laws that no one can even keep track of them all. Police are no different, so they end up doing as they please. When there are so many laws requiring police enforcement and execution, New York’s “stop and frisk policy” and the accompanying abuses by police should come as no surprise.
Alvin, a teenager, secretly recorded an instance in which he was violently detained by two police officers, for no reason. During the 2-minute recording, the officers provide no legal justification for their actions. One officer threatens to smack him. When Alvin asks why he is being threatened with arrest, the other officer responds, “For being a fucking mutt.” The other officer later says, “Dude, I’m gonna break your fuckin’ arm, then I’m gonna punch you in the fuckin’ face.”
This is regular practice. A NYPD veteran of over 10 years explained that police officers are encouraged to do this, stating, “The police department is like forcing us to do these unreasonable stops, or you will be penalized.” He further explained it was explicit policy to harass people. In fact, his captain once walked into the precinct and stated,”We’re going to go out there and we’re going to violate some rights.” (See full video here.)
Such actions are probably not legal, and not constitutional, but it doesn’t matter. When no one on the face of the planet can possibly begin to know, much less understand all the laws in existence, it’s not surprising that police don’t know, or don’t care about the law. When most lawyers who have been through 3 years of law school cannot competently explain Constitutional law, certainly police cannot be expected to have a good handle on the subject. When police have been granted a large, violent monopoly to enforce all kinds of stupid laws against people, they find it easy to exempt themselves from such trivialities and do as they please.
has anyone heard what happened to Hameed abdul-jabbar? cops son suspected of shooting a man 4 times ,, caught with 2 loaded stolen guns and released with no bail
Different tactics are used at different times to solve varied problems. NYC famously implemented the “broken window theory” at a time when it was needed and it had pretty spectularly good results. “Commu city oriented policing” is another theory that is implemented that had / has its place. “Geo-policing” is the new wave. The “stop and frisk” is a little strange to me…I don’t want to do something, if its going to let the bad guy off if I find something. But different states have different courts, and different Federal district courts as well.
Info find it VERY interesting Ms. Sand that you don’t think your fellow attorneys understand the constitution. Nor the police or judges. But yet you, and all of the Cop Blocker pals get it!! That’s is incredible. Maybe drugs really do expand the mind.
@T
It isn’t that they don’t understand the Constitution. It is that they have no regard for it. It is a block to their goals. There is even supreme court justices who trash it. One trashed ours while praising South Africa’s. That is why I’m not nearly as impressed as you are by court rulings. It is easy to rule checkpoints and stop and frisk are legal, if you care nothing for the Constitution.
Jesus, first it was Serpico, then Scowcraft that exposed the internals of the NYPD and we’re still dealing with this crap today?
@t
The constitution is supposed to be the highest law, superseding anything passed by congress. The police, judges, and politicians understand this, but many don’t like it and ignore it. If an unconstitutional law is passed and is not struck down by the courts it stands as is and police enforce it.
Stop and search is a GREAT example of that. This is the 4th amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
To the average person it’s pretty clear that the government does NOT have the right to randomly search people. The NYC politicians and cops didn’t like that, so they ignore it completely and randomly search people walking down the street for the “suspicion” of having to live in a bad neighborhood. This law stands because no judge has been willing to strike it down. The judiciary recently has been exemplary in upholding corporate rights (kelo, citizens united), but not nearly so aggressive in protecting individual rights.
Perhaps t could explain to us how the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA -
http://thefrogmouth.blogspot.com/2011/12/ndaa-politicians-christmas-present-to.html
passes constitutional muster.
I agree in general with the sentiments of this piece but disagree that NYC liberals who favor the soda ban are somehow in support of a police state or police brutality or are somehow just as at fault as conservatives who support the Drug War and militarization of police.
The large soda ban is simply not comparable to the other outrages mentioned. It’s not a crime to drink a large soda in NYC; it’s a regulation regarding what businesses sell. In the end, I’m opposed to the ban, because it’s overreach, but I can see its benefits. Anyway it seems like a pretty weak example in comparison to the mass jailing of poor people for non-violent drug offenses or brutal stop-and-frisk and protester-bashing behavior from cops.
@jacob: ‘The large soda ban is simply not comparable to the other outrages mentioned. It’s not a crime to drink a large soda in NYC; it’s a regulation regarding what businesses sell. In the end, I’m opposed to the ban, because it’s overreach, but I can see its benefits.’
Its purpose was to curb obesity. But then Bloomberg told us that you could buy 2 smaller sodas if you wanted. So….
Best reason that we came up with was that homeless people would buy them for use in other purposes.
Jacob, your distinction is inapposite. A business is not a magical or mythical creature. It is made up of individuals. If the business owner or employee violates the law, or falls too pay the fines associated with the soda law, the government will forcibly shut it down. I can guarantee you that if any business employee or owner continued to disobey, the police will bee ether with guns to shut the business down. If you don’t like the soda example, there are plenty of other things liberals want to ban that simply isn’t any of their goddamn business..banning soda, adults at the park, cigarettes, and wal mart is no less absurd than banning anal sex
My first comment stands for what it says about this article (my first paragraph is about the content / idea Sand purposed). My second paragraph is a about her porposterous notion that somehow she, and her Cop Blocker friends somehow know more, and have gained more incite into the knowledge and desires and goals of the founding fathers and what they meant by the things they wrote into the constition that they claim to move so much. I laugh every time someone here quotes Thomas Jefferson. His thoughts on freedom were great. But he wasn’t think of everyone, like we think of everyone. His was a white guy only idea. And is also hilarious, like @Fawkes tried to wrongly point out, that these same people want to pick and chose (kind of like you) the parts of the constitution that you want…and leave out the rest.
It before any of you jump on me about anything….READ my first comment. Up there at near the top. Comprehend what I wrote about NYC and NYPD before you shoot off. I might be a juicy looking target, it not when you are wrong and making it up.
The overall concept of the constitution was to protect the citizens from the government and it’s agents (the police) from being trampled on and subjugated. The documents limit what govt can do, it doesnt give us what we already have. It was given to the free people to make sure govt was accountable to them not the opposite. As far as quoting them, sure many owned slaves and that was a dark period in america but does that diminish what they stood for and wrote in these brilliant documents…no it doesn’t!
How many founding fathers had a profound faith in govt? It was called a necessary evil for obvious reasons.As far as the white guy thing..what the hell does that have to do with their ideas. Slavery was legal and in a cops mind that should be brought up by you guys on a consistent basis like everytime someone mentions these dui checkpoinnts. The courts have said they are legal is what cops say, well, slavery was legal and it was wrong to be and was corrected so even amercia makes mistakes but no their ideas were not wrong.
I do understand what you get at by attacking the cop blockers with the slavery lines when they quote them and yes they pick and choose but if we were having a discussion on the founding fathers and the constitution what I said is true and valid. Spend some time looking at what they all said putting aside the ad hominem atatcks about them owning slaves and ask this question. Do citizens need to be protected from the very government that they live under? Yes they do and if you look around you will see peoples in those countries that are 3rd world shit holes, communist dictatorships or totalatarian regimes that prey on their peoples with police, paramilitary or military forces to keep them in line and if it wasn’t for the constitution we have we would be no different than any of those because police are police no matter what. What is really amusing to me is the fact you police will say without laws we are fucked which you are right but without protection from the govt that is supposed to
serve us and keep us safe from it’s agents we would be more fucked and no different than any person in North Korea or China.
YF: The overall IDEA of the constitution, the reason it was written, was to establish the form of government for a new nation. And its brilliant with the checks and balance system it laid out. (BTW, where did I mention slavery in that comment? I meant that, in a total of thinking way, they didn’t think of women or minorities as people. White guys only.). My only “attack” on the cop blockers is as I said, pretty clearly I thought, the preposterous idea that they know so much more, have such better incite into the actual words of the constitution and the ideals that the writers of that document were saying. I will point you to the opening line, section of that document, the preamble. While not part of the “law” to the constitution, it clearly lays out the overall intent of the document. I will pinpoint one specific part of that and direct you to “promote the general welfare”. Now what does that sound like it means? Looks to be pretty self explanatory.
As for the DWI checkpoints that you and so many cop blockers have such massive problems with. Read the 4th clearly. There is that pesky word again, unreasonable…the brain of the cop blockers existence. Checkpoints have been judged to be reasonable as they don’t single out any single person or group. They are set out that they will stop every car, every 5th car, every 10th car, whatever. The intrusion is not “unreasonable”. Its minimal. The 4th doesn’t exclude any government involvement, interaction or involvement. Only “unreasonable” interactions. You have the freedom to not be involved in such events. Don’t drive. When I stop YOU specifically, I need that RS:-) , that isn’t required by checkpoints. My interaction is of a focused nature, directed specifically at you. We’re still nowhere near a 4th violation, no search.
As for the stop and search thing…I will again point you back to near the top of the page where I commented about that.
And I will also state again, don’t fall for the pick and choose ideas that are so common. Its a document in total. I will also remind everyone that while the amendments are a vital and extremely important part of that document, they are “amendments”. Added afterward, as an afterthought. The same writers that ultimately included those amendments, didn’t see a need for them initially. Im certainly glad that they are there and amazed by the beautiful simplisity that they were able to use to lay out such amazing thoughts. But the constitution CLEARLY doesn’t rule out any government (and therefore police) interaction. That interaction must just be reasonable and it should be to promote the general welfare.
YF: BTW, I’m actually a “small government” kinda guy. I frequently write here about community standards , town, city and county government. Those are administered by the people who live in those communities. I do believe in a strong, central federal government butiin think it has gotten WAY to big.
T,
I never mentioned you did I? and nor do I have an issue with the checkpoints as I never have said so. The purpose of the constitutionw as to do what you said to ensure the peoples were protected as well from it as if you look at everyone of their comments, they spoke of the evils of large government. Their idea was to have the government work for the peoples and make it answerable to the people, not the other way around.
You are not talking to someone blind to what it all says as I was a student of history and I am aware of the 4th and the 5th amendments and the court decisions relating to them. I like to study history, esp american history and the constitution is a fascinating document and many copblockers would benefit from it if they did open their eyes.
As you stated above, it was created to give us a system of checks and balances to ensure the government stayed a govt by the people, for the people and that it worked for us and not the other way around. As far as the bill of rights, they were introduced by James Madison at the 1st continental congress.
I would disagree with your wording afterhtought as they had time to draft them and introduce them 2 years after the constitution was ratified. The constitution created the govt, its 3 branches and well peoples can go read it. The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) was not an afterthought as in they didnt have them in mind. They had to be drafted and created and the intent was to ensure they were there to ensure freedom and liberty of the people.
It sems we have an understanding here but may be talking across lines sort to speak. I only said what I said because it needed to be said and no I dont fall victim to the copblocker thingy!
nd this link that discusses the bill of rights and how it was on their minds and their thinking on it plus a excerpt quote
Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html
I am not linking this to do a..I told you Officer T. I am linking this as it is a fascinating read and atleast imo..it doesnt look like it was an afterthought. It was a forethought that was debated, from what I read there, heavily.
And….my personal politics are right of Atilla The Hun. So I am glad you are a small govt fellow.
T, you are a fucking liar. Nowhere in the article did I say I, or anyone at Copblock understood the constitution better or know more than anyone else. In fact, the only opinion I really set forth about the constitution is that stopping a teenager with no legal justification and threatening to break his fucking arm is probably not legal or constitutional. My main point, which you would understand if you knew how to fucking read, is that there are so many laws that NO ONE can possibly understand them or know them all, including cops. Are you really going to fucking disagree with me there? Or do you think cops are some kind of superhuman/omniscient demi gods?
You also mentioned the general welfare clause. It is not so cut and dry. This is used today by democrates to justify govt mandated health care when according to some portions of this, it has to do with taxation and not legislative powers to congress to babysit us but it is also worth reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
@T
Your own defense of Checkpoints shows you to be a big government type. You, by your own support for such tactics, support all powerful government that can do as it pleases.
“The intrusion is not “unreasonable”. Its minimal.”
Minimal to the cops maybe, but maybe we citizens find it intrusive, demeaning, and leaves the question, “What is your individual reason for stopping me?”
What you’re saying is nothing but a fucking excuse, twisting words to get what you want. Like was said earlier, slaver was legal too. That didn’t make it right. And as I said, the people making these rulings don’t give a shit about the Constitution. They say so, while praising the constitutions of other countries. They use foreign law to justify their choices to ignore the Constitution. I’m not nearly as impressed by them as you are.
And only a government power loving dick would take the concept of unreasonable to mean they only have to treat us all the same. Are you not aware that the “Redcoats” did as they pleased? Broke into houses and seized property. But at least they treated us all equally. That’s good enough in your book.
That ‘government can do anything’ was what they were trying to block. Not simply force the government to treat all with the same lack of dignity. No government in history had any problems ignoring the dignity and rights of its people.
The entire concept of the Bill of rights was to control what the government and its agents could do to people. Whether that be one person, or 300 million. It didn’t matter.
The truth is that cops, including you, hate that the provisions of the Constitution make your job harder. Well, though. That was their purpose. To block you from the behavior the Founders understood to be dehumanizing and degrading. Do you honesty believe the Founders would approve of checkpoints and stop and frisk? Would they approve of the use of SWAT for ordinary arrests(and the innocent victims it creats.)? Or would they start shooting over those abuses?
Wow, these motherfuckers.
Another man dies over a harmless drug, that does not kill, Cannabis.
How many vets are homeless? Yea, that’s BS @ salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless. Jails do not monitor salt, fat and fiber, something is wrong about this.
A man playing chess and another picking up cans, gets fined, this is out of hand.
All this is ridiculous, the government is insane and paranoid over their own actions of 9/11/2001 & using 9/11 as an excuse to violate peoples rights.
Not just NYC, but take a read at below. Yea. More corruption.
Unlocking your smartphone will soon be illegal, and other DMCA new rule insanity
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/unlocking-your-smartphone-will-soon-be-illegal-and-other-new-dmca-rule-insanity/
The government is so big & corrupted, it will eventually collapse, China is waiting for US’s own failure and it is in place now.
http://www.roman-empire.net/collapse/collapse-index.html
http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-empire/reason-why-the-roman-empire-fell.htm
Its just not happening in New York http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L192EzJQcvY&list=UUq4XOCoy9DKGkUzW73rCz3g&index=1&feature=plcp
@George: Yet again…nice mouth lady. Wow you must just be gem in person. But as for the content of your comment directed at me. I will point ms. To the last paragraph in your “article”. While you don’t out right say it….you certainly imply it. Try honesty and not just trashy language. Many time on this blog I engage in an open exchange of ideas without such things. You apparently, are not capable.
@Shawn: hmm. You say tomato… As most of your rant is just opinion, I’ll skip to the last paragraph because at least it is interesting.
The “founding fathers” didn’t use bitch words like “dehumanizing and degrading”. That is liberal speak for “I don’t like it, and demand that you do what I want”. CRAP. You are still ignoring the rest of the document (because you don’t like what it implies & grants to others. This is still a democratic republic there guy, look into it. As for the checkpoint issue. The “founding fathers” DIDNT ANTICIPATE CARS (moron)!!! A horse won’t do but so much if it might get hurt…drunk horse back riding wasn’t so much of an issue for them (moron). That didn’t anticipate drug abuse of the types and scale that there is today. They didn’t anticipate the types of weapons that are readily available and use by criminals today.
So, to review. Your stances/thoughts/ideas about the checkpoints and SWAT are to say the least…debunked. Now if you would slow down on the senseless hatred, and go back and look and read what I said about stop and search…I don’t like that either (moron).
Now…ordinary abuses. Stops based on RS…constitutional. Arrests made with PC…mentioned in the 4th you claim to love so much (you guessed it..moron). BRD…well, pretty self explanatory don’t ya think?
Oh, and BTW, how, for the love of it, do you equate sobriety checkpoints, conducted by most local officers and deputies (the occasional state trooper thrown in maybe), with being a “big government type”? (Maybe just moron again?)
@T
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Read it. Probably cause is only mentioned as part of the process for getting a warrant. It is not mentioned as a justification in and of itself.
And the Constitution didn’t change because technology changed. Liberals try to use that to take our guns. That is just an excuse to ignore it. You want it changed? There is an amendment process.
“That is liberal speak for “I don’t like it, and demand that you do what I want”.”
That is cop speak for “Don’t dare question what we do or we’ll call you a liberal.”
” The “founding fathers” DIDNT ANTICIPATE CARS (moron)”
They didn’t have to. They anticipated government officials like you wanting to just do as you please, only pretending that it is constitutional.
“The “founding fathers” didn’t use bitch words like “dehumanizing and degrading”
So says a man who thinks it is ok for cops to simply decide to search someone without cause. The simple truth is that at a checkpoint, you have no RS or PC to stop the person and you do it any way.
It would be one thing if you had an act, such as crossing lanes or other bad driving. But you pull people over who’ve done nothing.
You fail to recognize that cops will always choose what makes their job easier. Cops routinely piss all over any restriction that makes their jobs harder.
They use trick ponies to their their PC, knowing it violates the 4th. That sums up the attitude of cops. So why would I listen to cops’ opinions on what is acceptable practice? You’ll say yes to anything that makes the job easier.
As for swat, how was that debunked? You raid houses on flimsy information and harm innocents, only to find the grow house didn’t exist. The bar for swat uses has gotten low enough a 2yo can jump it. It is easy for you to do it, because it isn’t your child now going to counseling for a bad raid. It isn’t your dog shot. It isn’t you beat to the ground and threatened. It is always easier when it isn’t you.
Unfortunately, the only way you will ever learn that maybe swat isn’t such a good idea is when you get the call that your loved one’s home has been destroyed, family terrorized or hurt, only to find that the man they are looking for moved out eight months ago and the piglets couldn’t be bother to be sure he lived there before busting down the door. Remember the 12yo girl who got burned. And cops don’t even care they screwed up yet again.
They almost never pay the price for bad raids that harm innocents. Even if no one is physically harmed, people are traumatized and violated in a way you can’t understand. Not until it is your dignity being trampled upon. But there is that ‘D’ word you think so little of.
Until it is you, you won’t figure it out. And at the rate of increased use of swat to serve normal warrants, it will happen.
@T
“Oh, and BTW, how, for the love of it, do you equate sobriety checkpoints, conducted by most local officers and deputies (the occasional state trooper thrown in maybe), with being a “big government type”? (Maybe just moron again?)”
Um, because once again it is government doing as it pleases to an individual? That by the very nature of such checkpoints, you have no RS or PC.
Big government isn’t only huge and massive bureaucracies. It is also the attitude that government can do what it wants, when it wants. It doesn’t matter if the government is your town, country, state, or nation. It is still an attitude of ‘we can take as much of your time as we want’, that ‘we can intrude into your life without any justification at all’, and ultimately ‘be submissive or die’.
Right. Lots of shootouts at DWI checkpoints. Grow up some
I really don’t know how the stop and frisk “program” is legal. Seems like a gang of ACLU laywers in NYC would be all over this.
But of course this is the same city that regulates the size of your drink cup and wants to limit your salt intake.
Sadly a stop and frisk is just a minor inconvenience for the good of the city. You must submit.
When people think the government is the answer to the problem you end up with stuff like this.
@Shawn: You type it out but miss it each time. Say it with me….U N R E A S O N A B L E. Doesn’t say ANY. Says U N R E A S O N A B L E .
I like living in a civilized culture where i can visit the grocery store our a hospital to meet needs i may have. There are those if you who can’t hands the personal responsibility needed to maintain a functioning society without said society soon feeding you. Those ridiculous laws are a reflection of the lazy gluttonous culture we’ve become. Sucking down your 64 oz sugar with a hint of carbonated beverage and then seeking free health case for the diabetes and heart failure that is sure to follow does effect me. It jacks up health care costs and makes me wait 10 hours in the ER should i actually have an unexpected occurrence that lands me there.
The easiest way to avoid an over bearing government is to behave in such a way as to not infringe upon the rights of others. Practice the basic principles of personal responsibility and suddenly the government well be absent from your life. The constitution is a peeve of paper. It doesn’t protect anything. It if the guiding principles from which this country was born. It is the men and women who enact, enforce, and interpret the laws that steer the course. If you don’t like them, vote them out. If you feel you are smarter and could do a Better Jon, than by all means, have a run at it. i suspect your bid for election will fail, because smug egotism alone doesn’t make a good leader. it is easy to read a book and pretend to understand hire the world works. Until you live it though you are nothing but a virgin studying sex. now, take it on yourself to lay off the unnecessary fatty food, driving impaired, and purchasing a plant grown by a violent organization keeping an entire basin destabilized so maybe, just maybe, there will be less government
The constitution is more than a piece of paper. It was written to create a govt outline that would be a govt by the people, for the people to ensure we were not oppressed by the govt and it’s agents. Thats the police/miliatry/paramilitary forces. They wanted people to be free. The constitution and the Bill of Rights limits what govt can do which then is the basis for the courts to interpert the laws that are enacted and the manner in which police use them to determine if they are acting accordingly. It doesn’t give us anything as it is instruction for the govt. The other things about electing leaders and better politicians goes without saying.
It might be obvious to you and i, but the gosPel of cop block is to point the blame at the government. The “government” doesn’t pass laws, elected officials do. The level of corruption that is proposed here is too organized to exist in such a large organization made up of people. The constitution is just a piece of paper, not some magical word handed down from a deity. It is a wonderful foundation, but it is people who make up the government. People we elect. If they are failing it is because we have failed. You can point the finger at who ever you like, but it doesn’t change a thing. is no vast conspiracy plotting against Americans, there is only our own lazy indifference. That will never be cured by screaming at authority like a rebellious teenager. I belieprinciples if the constitution, and i put a great value on freedom,
Sidebar, my tablet is a pain to type on. My point is, stop with the ridiculous rhetoric and conspiracies. All it does us minimize the effect gras roots movements can have by making them look absurd. There isn’t a video on here that is anything more than obnoxious kids being kids. imagine if the founding fathers had sat around making asinine comments rather than a real difference
This hurrican has proven preppers are not crazy lunatics.
NY is a police state, run for the hills.
I like how it is ok for cops to lie and form false relationships often frauding you out of true friendships or significant others for years of your life…often to prevent some relatively harmless person from perpetrating some crime that would never exist if for not of the invention of it by said law enforcement..then they run around talking how you have to man up and be honest and admit you are really the bad man they say you are (otherwise they wouldn’t have much justification in getting paid taxpayer money to harass and stalk you in a scary sick fashion)..if only you were more honest with them everything would have worked out better..honest to someone who has been lying to you over and over..in fact i think law enforcement are absolutely disgusting in their ability to lie to the point of brainwashing you out of even accusing them all in the name of preventing what often times is no big deal..I frankly couldn’t lie in that fashion and find it sick to be that way to anyone especially over something as benign as marijuana
wait…a ban on large sodas? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of! Ticketing people for playing chess in the park??? That park is famous BECAUSE Bobby Fischer used to play in it! I can just imagine a cop walking up to him and stopping his game and ticketing him! Wow New York has really gone down the tubes in the lawmaking department. If people want to be obese and drink lots of soda then let them! That is their choice it is a free country.