A U.S. border agent aimed his gun at a boy scout’s head after another scout took a photo of a government official near the Alaska/Canada border.
Credit: gazeronly / Flickr
Grimes, Iowa, Boy Scout Troop 111 was driving into Alaska recently when one of the scouts took a picture of the official, which provoked border agents into detaining and searching the scouts at gunpoint for over four hours.
“The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” Troop 111 leader Jim Fox told KCCI, adding that the agent claimed it was illegal to take photos of officials.
When another scout began removing luggage from the top of their van to be searched, one of the agents drew his gun on him.
“He hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head,” Fox said.
The troop was later released with no injuries.
Although Fox was outraged over the incident, Charles Vonderheid with the Mid-Iowa Council Boy Scouts of America told KCCI that they want to make sure the scouts “follow the rules.”
“A Scout is a good citizen,” he said. “It would be a great lesson in civics for that young man and that troop.”
But it is not illegal to take photos of government officials as long as it does not interfere with their official duties.
Simply put, these agents were using the color of law to detain children at gunpoint for perfectly legal behavior and considering how out-of-touch these agents were with reality, it is fortunate that none of these scouts were killed.
This is all part of the Obama administration’s draconian version of “Homeland Security” in which feds are encouraged to target peaceful Americans while Border Patrol agents trying to protect America’s southern border and national sovereignty are ordered to stand down.
“We are simply being ordered to stand down and stop tracking and trying to apprehend the criminals,” Shawn Moran, Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council, told Breitbart back in October.
Dear Jean,
So this is why you reject bonoboism I think. You are concrete-bound mentally, meaning for you anything based on something now extant cannot deviate from its roots.
If you want to live in a patriarchy, I have no problem with it. If you fear crowds threaten patriarchy, I’ll grant you your fear.
I don’t know what all separates bonobos from chimps. If it turns out buttsex is required to make it work, then I’m probably not going to continue advocating it any longer. I don’t think anyone says it does.
This “Bonobos are Homos” mantra locks up your mental operating system, and makes you stop thinking for yourself. Language itself is your master, not your servant.
I just sucked 8 billion dicks. This actually made my face flush to write. But that was all. Because it’s just words. To me, having sex with a farm animal or another dude are each equally attractive.
Since one is against the wishes of the state. Fuck a duck, I say with gusto. I am against the rise of the rainbow brigade mainly because they’re some of the fiercest statists to be found. And also, they confuse and misprogram women. For those reasons, screw ’em.
Words do have meaning and power, but their meaning and power should always be a means to your ends, never the other way around.
Do you not see how these guys’ obsessing over being betas or metrosexuals is itself submissive behavior?
– – –
I think you’re taking away the wrong lesson from this ROK blog.
– – –
I’ve seen women being called on their bluff of equality, and it’s a gambit that keeps on giving. Always let the gals drive. And make all the household decisions. Because really, why would a man care one way or another.
Women aren’t up to this genetically or biologically, and every few minutes they’ll ask a man something, and the man will pick an answer at random because he doesn’t care. It consumes women having to be leaders and keeps them off your back.
What’s manly in my eyes, is what doesn’t yet even exist. It’s what millions of men are just now bringing to fruition across this world thru their own mind, vision, and hands.
– – –
Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine.
ROK aims to usher the return of the masculine man in a world where masculinity is being increasingly punished and shamed in favor of creating an androgynous and politically-correct society that allows women to assert superiority and control over men. Sadly, yesterday’s masculinity is today’s misogyny. The site intends to be a safe space on the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed. Click here to send an email to the team.
Women and homosexuals are prohibited from commenting here. They will be immediately banned, and anyone who replies to them will also be banned. This includes replying in any thread that they started.
ROK Community Beliefs:
1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt.
2. Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not. This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women.
3. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.
4. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit.
5. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine.
6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.
7. Elimination of traditional gender roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.
8. Socialism, feminism, and cultural Marxism cause societies to decline because they destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and require large entitlements that impoverish the state.
http://www.returnofkings.com/about
– – –
This credo is all well and good. But from experience, I’ve found that women want to serve someone they believe in and will go to extreme altruistic lengths to do so. I will absolutely gamble with the remaining shreds of patriarchy now in existence, because I want to win more freedom.
These Abrahamic traditional gender roles that serve the active man were imagined and implemented long ago by ancient Nietzschean ubermensch.
Modern men of limited vision and intelligence foolishly suboptimizing their energies and giving their lives altruistically to halt the spread of these “scary” menaces herein described are more pitiable than mere commies, socialists, male feminists, and homos IMHO.
Hi Tor,
The roster of “kingly” criteria strikes me as dirigiste – just as I think you yourself observed (if I am not mistaken).
Why must everyone (of either sex) conform to someone else’s idea of what ought to be?
Was Alexander of Macedon any less a great general because he had sex with men? Is Marie Curie’s “worth” primarily a function of her reproductive capacity?
Oy vey.
And the last item (#8) really sums it up: “… and require large entitlements that impoverish the state.”
Italics added.
Mussolini would approve; Hitler would clap.
Some scientists are turning away from using rats in their experiments and using lawyers instead. 3 reasons:
1. There are just sooo many of them.
2. There is less chance of the scientist becoming attached to the lawyer.
3. There are some things even a rat won’t do.
Very interesting read today, over at Return of Kings. Others may have already seen this. I warn you it is depressing, though not in a gut-wrenching way, just an overall ennui sort of way.
http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/what-humans-can-learn-from-the-mice-utopia-experiment
Extract is:
In 1950, an American ethologist named John Calhoun created a series of experiments to test the effects of overpopulation on the behaviour of social animals. The animals which Calhoun chose for his experiments where mice (and later on rats). He chose rodents as these reproduce rapidly thus allowing him to observe the development of several generations of mice in a relatively short space of time.
Calhoun and his researchers found that in a space-limited/resource unlimited environment, the population of mice would explode; peak-out and then collapse to extinction. This test was replicated several times and it was found that these led to the same outcome each time. The reason for this phenomenon was found to derived from social decay which worsened with each generation. The social decay led to unrest in the environment, which in turn led to sub replacement fertility. It was concluded that nature has a limit in which social animals can interact.
John Calhoun’s experiments gained world-wide recognition and his expertise was sought after by government bodies such as NASA. They present a useful yet grim insight into what could be our own future, for no matter how many times Calhoun repeated the experiment, the results led to the same inevitable conclusion: extinction.
I would guess we’re coming due. On a global scale, mind.
No doubt, Jean.
Or rather, I agree with you (and Calhoun).
Which is why I fervently hope someone with The Smarts invents FTL drive. The universe – hell, our own local galaxy – is for all practical purposes limitless in terms of real estate and resources. I have always believed this as an article of faith, but now we have some facts to back it up. As recently as 20 years, extra-solar planets were hypothetical; now their existence is established. Thousands have been identified. Including several “earths” – or could-be earths.
Of course, the fly in the soup is that these planets may already be, you know, occupied….
We’ll bring plenty of toilet paper when we colonize Uranus so we can deal wiith the Klngons.
Meanwhile the Internet is abuzz over a millionaire blogger trying to disconnect his cable TV.
What an age we live in!
Hi Eric,
I hadn’t heard about that!
I’ll tell you what, though:
I have given thought – serious thought – to buying an off-the-grid place in some very remote place and (to the extent such is possible these days) simply disappearing. If I were not married, if I were 25 again – I probably would already have done it.
On the other hand, I get a charge out of Clover kicking (so to speak). I don’t where all of this is going to lead – EPautos-wise and otherwise. But I do believe we are all going to experience an epochal paradigm shift in the very near future and – in my own small way – I am glad to be a part of it. If this site, if my rants, have helped to awaken even one other person (or at least got them thinking along certain lines) then I’ll take great satisfaction in having done something worthwhile with my keyboard.
And we wonder why we have SO MANY clovers? Even the BSA is full of shit, I mean, Clovers…
further, EVEN IF IT WERE ILLEGAL TO TAKE THE PHOTO, doesn’t Mr. Head-up-his-@$$ Scoutmaster realize the response was WAY out of line?
Or is he too busy bending over and lubing up to teach the children how to be men? To be assertive, without being aggressive? Or at least to be something OTHER than a doormat?
In the film, The Sound of Music, there’s a scene when the Von Traps are hiding while trying to escape. A boyfriend of one of the girls finds them. This boyfriend, I think he was a Brown-Shirt or something, he gave the location of the Von Traps up to the Nazis,… like a good little Boy Scout?
I was reminded of that scene when I read this blog entry.