It’s fine to talk theory – what would be ideal. But while working toward that, what about practical changes that don’t require a sea change evolution in consciousness? For example, what can be done – in practical terms – about law enforcement?
That there is a problem is as obvious as Caitlyn Jenner’s Adam’s apple. The big problem – tyrannical laws based on the tyrannical idea that it’s legitimate to order people around and abuse them for not causing any harm to anyone – isn’t going to be solved absent a sea-change evolution in consciousness.
But there are some obvious fixes that would make things a lot better right now – and it’s hard to imagine anyone objecting:
Law enforcers should be required to know the law – and be fired when they are caught making up law …
If the frau at the DMV gets it wrong, you can argue with her without fearing for your life; she isn’t armed and the worst that she can do is not give you your stickers or whatever it is you came to get. You are always free to go.
Law enforcers have guns.
Citizens who carry guns operate under extremely strict rules and are warned that they had better not operate outside the law, even by a little bit. Repercussions for doing so are severe.
And so, they rarely operate outside the law.
Shouldn’t the same standard apply to armed law enforcers? That they at least know what the law is? And be sanctioned just as severely if they step outside the bounds of the law?
Keep in mind that everything a law enforcer does – no matter how “friendly” he may seem – is backed up by a gun. You know it, he knows it. This makes every encounter between a citizen and a law enforcer inherently threatening – to the citizen.
Which is why it so important that law enforcers restrict their enforcement to the actual law – and nothing beyond the law. Put another way, no citizen should ever have to worry about law enforcement unless he has violated a law or – as the courts style it – given law enforcement some specific reason to suspect he has or may be about to violate the law.
And yet, citizens are routinely accosted by armed law enforcement ignorant of the law – or simply contemptuous of it. Examples are many but include belligerently confronting citizens legally taking pictures or video in public, where there is no expectation of privacy and the courts have repeatedly stated that no permit or permission is needed to photograph or video record anything that is plainly visible from a sidewalk or other public right-of-way.
This includes law enforcement nests, courts, jail facilities and so on.
Law enforcers often regard such photography/video-taking as an affront to their authority – but it is not illegal, no matter how much they are affronted. If they do not know this and accost citizens anyhow, they are derelict in their duty. If they do know this and accost citizens, they are simply thugs. Either should be cause for immediate dismissal – if not a criminal prosecution – as would absolutely happen if a mere citizen accosted someone lawfully going about his business.
Demanding ID when there is no legal authority to do so is another example of the abuse of law by those given authority to enforce it.
And, of course, the use of excessive force.
Any illegal act performed by a person given life or death power over others ought to be treated at least as seriously as the same action would be treated if performed by an ordinary citizen, lacking life or death power over others.
Law enforcement is “trained” in all kinds of things peripheral to knowledge of the law: e.g., how to suss out arbitrarily illegal drugs or perform a “visual estimate” of vehicle speed, admissible as evidence in court. Why not require that law enforcers demonstrate competent working knowledge of the law – and weed out those who demonstrate that they do not possess it?
The right to defend oneself against an abusive law enforcer
If someone enters your home illegally, attempts to take something of yours or threatens you with physical violence, you have a legal (as well as moral) right to defend yourself. If you get the better of your assailant – or simply get away from him – you won’t be charged with a crime.
They will be.
Few question the rightness of this.
Why shouldn’t the same standard apply when a citizen is abused by law enforcement? Why should a government-issued costume grant what amounts to a license to abuse people by making such abuse, in effect, a legally protected act – since the citizen isn’t permitted to defend himself against such?
Shouldn’t a citizen be free to ignore a palpably unlawful command (e.g., to stop taking video in public, which is absolutely legal) and walk away – without legal repercussions? And – if legally justified – defend himself physically against an abusive law enforcer?
As it stands, not only does a citizen face repercussions for ignoring unlawful orders, for defending himself against abuse of authority – the abusive law enforcer is treated far more gently for his abusive actions than the citizen is for defending his legal rights.
Personal liability for wrongdoing
Most of us are held personally responsible – civilly as well as criminally – for any reckless/criminal conduct we commit that results in harm to others or damage to their property. The family of OJ Simpson’s victims, for instance, won’t get their damages out of the hides of taxpayers who didn’t kill Ron and Nicole.
OJ will pay.
Ordinary citizens – even OJ – cannot foist the bill for the damage they cause in the course of their work onto the backs of taxpayers, as law enforcement routinely does.
A contractor usually has liability insurance that will pay out for any damages arising from his actions. The fact that he must pay the premiums and can be held personally liable above and beyond whatever the insurance coverage provides inclines him to conduct himself responsibly rather than recklessly.
Law enforcing is the only job that encourages reckless – not infrequently, criminal – action by limiting personal/civil liability for such action. This is outrageous, an affront to the idea of equal treatment by the law – and (worse) an incentive to act irresponsibly because the abusive enforcer knows will not be personally bankrupted, his house taken from him, his family dispossessed – even if he is found criminally guilty of egregious abuse of lawful authority.
Requiring all law enforcers to carry liability insurance – the premiums paid out of their salaries, just as contractors and everyone else is forced to do – and ending the noxious policy of immunizing them from personally having to pay their victims – would go a long way toward curbing their enthusiasm.
Aggressive prosecution of law enforcers who do not enforce the law against abusive fellow enforcers –
An ordinary citizen who fails to report a crime or helps to cover up a crime committed by another citizen is subject to criminal prosecution for such acts. It is called “aiding and abetting.”
Why shouldn’t at least the same standard be applied to law enforcement?
A law enforcer who stands by and does nothing when a fellow enforcer violates the law is arguably much worse than an ordinary citizen who aids and abets criminal activity because the law enforcer’s duty is to know and enforce the law – without exception – and because a law enforcer has far more power than an ordinary citizen to intervene.
It is important to note that law enforcers are considered officers of the court – and (like lawyers and judges, who are also officers of the court) ought to be bound by an even stricter ethical code than ordinary citizens precisely because they are officers of the court.
In exactly the same way that professional journalists are held to a higher standard when it comes to plagiarism and doctors to medical malpractice.
A law enforcement black list
The Catholic Church used to simply transfer pedophile priests from one town to another – which had the predictable result: More victims.
Abusive law enforcers are treated much the same way as pedophile priests. If fired here, they simply relocate there – the people of there having no idea who is now “on duty” among them.
Until the abuse repeats.
This is particularly shameful for the same reason that the musical pedophile priests thing was shameful. It’s a tragedy when a priest – or a law enforcer – abuses someone. But it is an outrage when a known abusive priest or law enforcer is given a “second chance,” particularly when – as is often the case – the new victim pool has no clue about the background of the known offender.
There are multiple federal databases that store and correlate date about citizens who’ve been convicted of some offense or other. These are used to prevent convicted felons from legally buying guns and to keep convicted sex abusers properly sequestered and known to the public.
Is there any reason why a similar roster shouldn’t exist for known abusive law enforcers?
Shouldn’t abusive conduct egregious enough to result in a law enforcer being fired in one jurisdiction automatically disqualify that individual from ever being entrusted with state-sanctioned life or death power a second time?
Whatever else might be done, it’d be a start.
. . .
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. Also, the eBook – free! – is available. Click here. Just enter you email in the box on the top of the main page and we’ll email you a copy instantly!
I think those suggestions would work well as a good start. And I agree with everything you wrote.
But just like the swamp-critters in Washington, DC, those we entrust to “make government work” always start by making sure they are exempt from the rules they create.
And as long as we give in to the warning of Chairman Mao, they will make sure we never forget his rule: “Government gets its power out of the barrel of a gun.” Or whatever he actually said; I’m neither an expert on criminals or Communists.
Since the majority of what they pass is repugnant to the Constitution, it is void under Marbury.
Most bureaucrats don’t follow statutes. They follow Codes of Federal Regulation, none of which applies to those who don’t traverse to it.
Their laws, codes, and statutes contradict each other as much as they contradict the Constitution. The rule of law of as much of a fiction as is the “social contract” or “the consent of the governed” or the delegation of rights which we don’t possess, to others.
These days, and for quite some time now, they rule by force. They have more and bigger guns. They’ve been in the brainwashing business long enough that there is little resistance- else they would not be able to reign over a population of 300 million by force; and what resistance there is, is easily dealt with by the abundance of big guns, and so many of our fellow countrymen being complicit with our captors.
The law books are just a dog and pony show for the gullible.
Americans who were taught that freedom is good might wonder why they are now being told to embrace tyranny.
Americans who were taught that debt is bad might wonder why they are now being told that debt is good.
Americans who were taught that peace is good might wonder why they are now being told to embrace wars.
Americans who were told to love their country might wonder why no one says anything while the USA collapses.
https://www.anonboards.com/viewforum.php?f=3
If Americans could still think…they might indeed wonder about those things……
If they can’t think, how can they do anything else?
Bill, that’s why Western civilization is crumbling; the American standard of living is deteriorating; and tyranny is increasing…. ’cause few can think any more. How else do you end up with a country of where the majority still believe that 3 skyscrapers collapased into their own footprint because two of them were hit by airplanes…and that paper passports surivived and were miraculously found, where steel and concrete were disintegrated, and black boxes with locator beacons could not be found/did not survive?
Such would not make sense to a reasonable 10 year-old….but 100 million adults have no problem with it…
Where would you find a reasonable 10 year old who has been through 10 years of constant indoctrination?
Hi Free,
It’s schizoid, isn’t it?
People still mouth the words; put their hands over their hearts and take the pledge. But it’s hollow and silly.
We have the “freedom” to choose to do was we are told – or be punished.
Eric,
It is ignorance ingrained by everything most people have been told since birth for their whole lives, usually beginning with equally ignorant parents.
I occasionally young people with enough discernment to recognize that I don’t follow the herd. My advice to them is to learn to emulate the herd until the majority isn’t part of it. As Michael Rutherford and Baxter Robertson put it in silent running:
“Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still”
They get all of that from the mainstream media that they have come to trust.
Wow! Eric’s column brought a plethora of responses. Most were well thought out and informative. Unfortunately the majority of the backward hat wearing public will never see any of them.
And Bill, I’m a member of JPFO, FIJA, CSPOA, the John Birch Society, Judicial Watch and a couple more.
Every one of them is working, in their own capacity, to return America limited Constitutional Government. And every one of them is vilified by MSM, the Moronic Screaming Media.
One thing that really bothers me is the term “Law Enforcement Officer”. It carries no obligation to serve, protect citizens or follow the Constitution. Further, I have noticed those who consider themselves “Law Enforcers” have a tendency to shave their heads, beef up, and try to be as intimidating as possible.
This eventually leads to really bad things.
Finally I would recommend reading the book “The Fourth Turning” by Wm. Strauss and Neil Howe. It is not an easy read. It is as serious as a heart attack. One that is just beginning.
Law Enforcement Officers have to take the same oaths that COPs used to. They are trying to intimidate us with new speak and it seems to be working pretty well on you. Former military traitors are most police department’s first choice for rookie officers because they are already thoroughly trained in the suppression and oppression of the foreign populations they were sent to learn to violate their oaths on. If we continue to allow ourselves to be dumbed down and dissuaded from the exercise of the rights that are innately ours, they will succeed in our subjugation as a result of our dereliction of duty from the sole duty assigned us in the Declaration of Independence. If you already know what is going on, reading about it only serves to debilitate and discourage you if you don’t do anything to improve your ability to challenge and push it back.
cops dump on people all the time. my instances: a cop put low quality weed in my car and took me to jail. The time they pulled me for no reason and made me take out my contacts and I lost one, made me walk home and my car was vandalized. The time they cuffed me and stuffed me for no reason but instead of jail they took me about ten miles out of town and dumped me out on a cold winter night and laughed. I tried to withdraw cash from the bank as the seller of my current house wanted cash. Got cops at the house. Neighbor didn’t like me, cops at the house. Other neighbor’s dogs were killing my cats, confronted them, cops at the house. Got home from a Thanksgiving family thing, neighbor called the cops for a “welfare check”, cops at the house. I’m pretty sure they are looking for something small to make trouble for people. But the big one (and this is on the system) is when the guy from a rich family hacked me up with a machete and didn’t even get indicted. A few months later he hit on a young woman who laughed and turned him down. He beat her up and raped her. But she was from a middle class family and the cops couldn’t blow it off. He got one year of probation. If you can possibly manage it your best bet is to stay home and have no contact with anybody especially cops. One other thing: I ran a background check on myself and the cops have been in the system and lied. I have arrest crap in there in locations I have never even been to. Arrests are in there for people with even different birthdates. A lot of cops are liars and thugs. It has to make it tough for the ones who are not. In fairness, I have to assume that a lot of cops are good people. But you just don’t know what you are going to get so just stay home.
What if the mere existence of an armed law enforcer is a violation of the Constitution, and so the authority under which they operate void under Marbury v Madison?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
Bill,
law merchant/statutory law is contract law. The officer is operating in his private capacity as a contract enforcer. Marbury vs Madison has nothing to do with it.
If you can’t cite it, it isn’t admissible in court.
Marbury is a primary constitutional finding that doesn’t need acceptance in contract law to stand.
Contracts are enforceable in federal courts per the Constitution.
They started out as officer of the court – and their only duty was to go out and arrest people who didn’t come in voluntarily after the warrant was issued.
No article 3 court has any executive authority.
Bill, there are no article 3 courts currently operating. We are under admiralty. The Lieber code and all that. If you claim to be a US citizen you are under martial law. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Until we change it. You can start by thinking of yourself as an American State National, or better yet, a Man, author of government and of superior status.
When was the SCOTUS disbanded?
It wasn’t, it was co-opted.
Since there are more working plastic surgeons than geneticists with knowledge of the genetics of gender, having any distinctive feature of either, or both, genders is a matter of ones plastic surgeon than ones geneticist.
And no one but you noticed?
I think it is important to understand what kind of law is being administered by these moron cops and the entire judicial system. The cops have no idea but the higher ups know exactly what is going on. It is law merchant/admiralty. The judges call it statutory law. It is the merger of maritime and equity.
Sometime in the fifties the Bar association effectively took over the judicial system in this country and made the switch from common law -law of the land-pleading to statutory pleading-law of the sea . With adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in all fifty states the deed was done.
So what is this statutory law thingy? It is the law that governs “things,” corporate entities, legal fictions, individuals (legalese for a single legal fiction) and persons (a legal entity). If you read through your state’s “vehicle” code, you will find that it applies only to persons. Ex: A driver is a PERSON in physical control of a “vehicle.” If you go to the definitions section of the code, usually the first section of the code, you find the definition of the word person, in Montana that is (b) For purposes of this subsection (1), “person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, state agency, local government unit, another state government, the United States, a political subdivision of this or another state, or any other legal or commercial entity.
So what does this have to do with you? Ever wonder why the cops are ALWAYS asking for ID? It is to create joinder between the fiction, that NAME on you driver license and you, the Man or Woman. Only when joinder is established can they proceed. The cops don’t have a clue what they are doing. It is not you being charged, it is the PERSON. The whole proceeding is commercial. By now most are scratching their head and muttering, WHAT? Your ignorance of this is deliberate, you were never told.
So consider what the cop sees on a daily basis. He issues a ticket and the poor slob who goes to court for this commercial presentment is railroaded by the court into paying a fine or doing time. He sees it over and over. He concludes he has some magical power over his fellow Men and Women. He is told in cop school he is the boss. He believes it because he or she is generally not the brightest bulb on the tree. The department made sure of that by not hiring people with an IQ of over 80 or something. The cop has no idea what fundamental law (the constitution, declaration etc.) has to say about his position because he was never told, again, deliberate. He is charging legal fictions and he thinks he is charging the Man or Woman.
So you see what this has led to, a deliberate dehumanization of those with whom he deals. You are nothing but cattle, a revenue source, a “thing” to be shaken down.
So what to do about it? Education. There are folks out there who know how to deal with these things but they have spent years studying the subject. You can find a bunch of youtube videos where the cop is put in his place, but even knowledge is no guarantee that you won’t be harmed.
The system was put in place because the banking system (federal reserve) necessitated a system of regulating commercial paper. That’s all the banking system is, commercial paper flying around. It does not deal with flesh and blood, only fictions. In order to deal with it you must have a “person,” an entity that is a middle man between flesh and fiction. It has led to tyranny. It is the foundation of the NWO. It is corporate rule. It is evil.
So, at least, try to get a fundamental understanding of this. It will change the way you see things. And when that happens you will see the system for what it is, an illusion that has physical consequences . And then you can demand change that addresses the problem and not the symptoms.
Can you cite “law merchant/admiralty” in black letter law?
Bill
What does “black letter” law have to do with private law? You will find reference to common, law merchant/admiralty and equity in the fed and state constitutions. Not statutory. The courts can hear all three. Statutory, law merchant and equity are contract law, and thus between private parties. The state cannot interfere with our right to contract but it can adjudicate disputes between parties to the contract. “Black letter law” whatever that is, I assume you mean positive law, has little to do with it
If it isn’t black letter law, it isn’t law.
Please define “black letter law.” I can’t find that one anywhere. There are all sorts of law: common, law of the sea, ecclesiastical, corporate, etc. etc. all have written and non written rules and codes and regulations. The question is, which law have you agreed to be (stand) under?
black letter law refers to a legal issue that is unambiguous.
For instance, it is black letter law that in order for a gift to be valid the donor must be a donative intent.
Thanks for the definition! So it appears black letter law is simply unambiguous written law. Ok, so that could apply to law merchant, common, cannon or any other written law. The question remains, which law have you agreed to?
The only law that requires my assent is contractual, and I haven’t entered any that are still in force that require such.
I just copied the link to your article and sent it to my senator, Mr. Tom Cotton. I also asked him to address this issue by presenting a bill to the senate. I agree with your article and we the people have to stand up to the bullies in blue. We the people have to know the law and force the police to abide by the will of the people. Thank you for the article.
Good luck with Sen. Cotton – a big government, big military, Republican party public sector lifer. He is one loathsome piece of shit.
I’m afraid what you suggest *does* require a sea change of consciousness, and you will not like the reason why. The basic misunderstanding seems to be that the enforcers should be subject to the laws. Cops are *by definition* people who are allowed to break any and every moral law in order to keep the cattle in line and productive for the farmers, i.e., politicians. Any suggestion that there is more to it is an illusion. You asked many questions and made many suggestions. Each one is based on the same misunderstanding. You say, “If they…(do such and such), then they are simply thugs.” The problem is that there need be no “if.” The *job,* the *duty* of cops is to be thugs to enforce the immoral mandates of the politicians and, above all, keep an orderly inflow of wealth, produced by the cattle, so the farmers can continue to live their parasitic lives.
“Why should a government-issued costume grant what amounts to a license to abuse people by making such abuse, in effect, a legally protected act – since the citizen isn’t permitted to defend himself against such?”
Of course it “shouldn’t,” but that is the purpose and meaning of it. They are just doing their duty to abuse regular people on behalf of the livestock management team. It requires a sea change of consciousness to get any different outcome. You can say “they should be …(this or that),” but who is going to force them? Answer: They are perceived (and applauded) as the enforcers, so no one can force them to do anything.
END NOTE: All the examples of (the small number of) cops being fired, subject to the legal system, etc. are just there to create the illusion of legitimacy which is the central problem. They are not really there because the purpose and duty of cops is anything other than the unpleasant reality explained above.
Indiana actually has a Castle Doctrine law allowing citizens to defend themselves against the unlawful actions of police in one’s home. The hypothetical example given is that a homeowner comes home to find a cop raping his wife. Prior to the passage of the law, it would not have been permissible to stop the assault. Under the law, he may use deadly force if necessary. So far as I am aware Indiana is the only state that has such a law.
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Indiana-law-lets-citizens-shoot-at-police-3612347.php
You are correct about Indians’s “castle doctrine” law. However, it was the state legislature that had to take on the Indiana Supreme Court and pass a law that specifically dealt with rogue cops invading a home. In a previous case, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that occupants / homeowners had no recourse (but to use the courts) against cops who violated their homes. The Indiana Supreme Court wanted to establish a “carve out” for rogue police officers. Thankfully the Indiana legislature did the right thing.
Barnes v. State of Indiana 953 N.E. 2d 473 (2011).
No one is more unhappy than I am about the status of our police and their behavior. But asking them to correct their activity is as futile as asking public school teachers to correct the piss ant performance of their students.
Both are little more than the teeth on a meat saw in the hands of government butchers. It all starts (and ends) with the thugs we elect every time we vote.
Police do not enforce laws and regulations that prosecutors do not support. Prosecutors do not bring violations to court that judges do not like. And judges do not handle issues the elected politicians do not want to see.
Cops that exercise independent judgment do not stay employed, and certainly are not promoted.
This is not in their defense. They are civilians, not drafted, and do not swear to obey the orders of their superiors. They can quit, anytime. And their safety is of prime importance, not the safety of the public.
But they do need jobs and that is issue.
Our country is sick and looking more like the Fourth Reich every day. Leadership is the problem, and the issue.
Happy Pearl Harbor Day !
Pearl Harbor Day?
The US had already been making war against the Japanese Empire and the latter had every right to respond.
Tokyo Won’t Go to War… This Time
by Nick Giambruno | December 06, 2017
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE +
SUBSCRIBE
When I visited the memorial at Pearl Harbor, I briefly wondered if the Japanese were simply suicidal.
Why start an uncertain battle with a much more powerful opponent?
Japan’s leaders knew the US military was far superior when they attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941. The attack killed over 2,400 people and brought the US into World War 2.
But Japan’s leaders had a powerful reason to gamble with their nation’s fate…
Access to energy.
For Japan—an island nation totally dependent on imports—access to oil was a matter of life and death. The country needed to secure its energy supply. That made attacking Pearl Harbor a practical proposition.
Turns out, the Japanese thought not attacking Pearl Harbor was suicidal.
Here’s why…
In the early ’40s, Japan had big plans to dominate East Asia. The imperial Japanese military was on the march. And the US was the only country that could stop it.
The US wanted to block Tokyo and protect its geopolitical position in the region. So it moved to restrict Japan’s access to oil, which Japan needed to feed its economy and war machine.
Not surprisingly, the Japanese considered this hostile and aggressive. The US government didn’t expect it to provoke an attack, though.
Recommended Link
A Biotech Breakthrough 7 Times Bigger than the Cancer Industry?
On December 19th, an FDA anomaly could launch a new breakthrough biotech industry 35,000%… Making it seven times bigger than the cancer drug industry and crowning it the new king of biotech medicine. Click here to see this FDA anomaly exposed.
—
The Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs at the time, Dean Acheson, said, “No rational Japanese could believe that an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country.”
The Japanese disagreed.
They knew they would run out of vital commodities soon. So they had two choices… let the US slowly strangle their country and ultimately surrender… or take their chances on a risky war against a vastly superior opponent.
In Japan’s samurai culture, surrender was the ultimate disgrace.
Death in battle was better. So they chose option two. It was the only honorable choice.
Japan’s leaders thought the Pearl Harbor attack could knock the US Navy out of the Pacific for at least six months. This would give Japan a sizable window to secure its energy sources without US interference—and to fortify its military positions across the Pacific.
By the time the US could respond, it would face a deeply embedded opponent and decide it was best to leave East Asia to Japan.
That was Tokyo’s plan, at least.
In reality, Japan did successfully capture Singapore from the British. It was an enormous victory. Winston Churchill called it the “worst disaster” in British military history.
And, after a string of big wins during their six-month window, the Japanese were entrenched. They appeared unbeatable. Their leaders hoped this would sap US morale so much that Washington would seek a compromise.
But President Roosevelt did not want to compromise.
Many believe he was actually waiting for the perfect pretext to sell a hesitant US public on another world war. Some even claim the US had deciphered Japan’s military code and knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming.
In any case, the Japanese could not have been more wrong. Ultimately, their decision to strike Pearl Harbor culminated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, total defeat, and unconditional surrender. Even today, the US still maintains military bases in Japan.
Today, Japan is in the midst of another energy security crisis.
Right now, it depends on imports for over 90% of its energy needs. Tokyo won’t go to war over it this time. But this crisis could lead to enormous profits in the world’s most hated resource market.
Earlier this year I traveled over 25,000 miles to Japan—and Kazakhstan—to find out how to profit from this historic opportunity.
Recommended Link
Cali Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
On January 1 there will be a marijuana boom 8x bigger than anything we’ve seen before. Get the whole story here.
—
The World’s Most Hated Commodity
On March 11, 2011, one of the largest earthquakes in history hit off the coast of Japan. The earthquake, and the tsunami that followed, killed thousands of people and caused over $200 billion in damage.
The tsunami also caused a nuclear meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima power plant, which released radioactivity into the air. It was the worst (and only) nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Afterward, Japan took all 54 of its nuclear reactors offline.
Japan suddenly needed a major new source of energy.
The country has a law dating back to the 1970s that requires it to stockpile at least five years’ worth of energy supplies. Uranium, which fuels nuclear power plants, is the only feasible way for Japan to do that. It’s simply not practical for Japan to stockpile enough coal, oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), etc.
For now, Japan is making an emergency exception to its five-year law because of Fukushima. But this puts it in a very vulnerable geopolitical position, especially since tensions with China, its historical rival, are increasing.
The Japanese know that relying on the kindness of foreigners for their energy security is foolhardy. This situation can’t continue indefinitely.
Eventually, Japan will have to bring most of its nuclear power plants back online. However, restarting idled plants is not as simple as flipping a switch. And, with LNG prices near recent lows, they haven’t had an immediate need to do so.
Nonetheless, Japan recently stated that it would like nuclear power to account for as much as 22% of its energy mix by 2030.
Japan is just one factor driving the coming uranium boom.
Even if Japanese demand for uranium doesn’t return soon, the enormous amount of new demand from China’s new nuclear plants will more than offset it.
Before Fukushima, Japan was a major source of demand for uranium. The country had embraced nuclear energy in the 1960s, despite being devastated by nuclear weapons in World War 2.
Not surprisingly, global demand for uranium tanked after Fukushima. A global supply glut followed.
The uranium price crashed from around $85 to under $30. Then it continued sliding to around $18 per pound, far below the cost of production.
That was last November, and it appears to have been the bottom.
That same month, I said uranium had entered a new bull market and recommended a “best of breed” uranium company in Crisis Investing.
Uranium is now on a confirmed uptrend, but it’s still far below the cost of production. It’s still near the moment of maximum pessimism.
No other commodity has more upside and less downside right now.
The uranium market is one of the best crisis investing opportunities I’ve ever seen.
Psychology plays a big part in all this. After Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and of course Fukushima, it’s easy for certain media and politicians to villainize uranium.
Besides that, investors are terrified that uranium prices have fallen over 85% from previous highs. I don’t know of a market where the sentiment is worse.
This is all good news for us.
The whole point of investing in crisis markets is to take advantage of the aberrations of mass psychology and pick up elite companies and assets for pennies on the dollar. This describes the current opportunity in the uranium market perfectly.
Nuclear power delivers immense value to its users, there’s no substitute for it, and production is falling while demand rises.
This situation only has two possible outcomes:
Uranium prices don’t go up. Miners have no incentive to produce. Nuclear power plants run out of uranium, and the lights go out for billions of people.
Uranium prices go up and incentivize enough production to meet the demand.
There are no other options. Which one do you think is more likely?
Right now, the current uranium supply/demand imbalance is setting the stage for the next uranium boom.
Now is the time to get positioned for the same kind of explosive returns we’ve seen in previous uranium bull markets.
Until next time,
Nick Giambruno
Senior Editor, International Man
HEY Giumbruno
nice piece on some little known but not UNknown history. Nut ENOUGH of the promotion of YOUR wesite. The “hiudden” aadverts are NOT appreciated. Nest time, they’ll be reported as spam. You ar ebig enough to comment without promoting your own. Be more respectful.
Giambruno doesn’t have a website, and the slightest bit of diligence on your part would have determined that I was the poster, not Giambruno.
>”Now is the time to get positioned “<
Yeah….start bending over…..
Ya gotta love guys who pimp investments! If the investments are so great, why are the pimps investing their money looking for other people to draw in, as opposed to investing that money in the "wonderful" investment?
Maybe it's me, but I've never been one to expect to put my pittance out there and have it magically morph into more at someone else's expense. Isn't that what bankers do? Aren't we always criticizing those bankers? I don't want to be a mini banker. I'd rather invest in myself, and actually produce a product or service, or actually add value to something, to parlay my money, rather than tossing it out there and expecting it to come back with more…..
It's funny how all of the "alternatives"- whether they be alternative news or alternative investment brokers, sure end up sounding just like the mainstreamers, and copying their ways….
The "alternative" media has become just as bad as the MSM. I don't even read the "alternative" news sites anymore…all it ever is anymore, is Russia this, and North Korea that; Trump this; Syria that….. and they're all preaching "buy gold", which, even if I knew nothing else, would tell me to avoid such! (and ditto Bitcoin!)
Freaking people never learn.
AMEN! If you found this awesome investment deal, Why The Hell would you tell anyone!!!
It is pretty hard to market investment deals without telling anyone.
If you knew what the Japs were doing in China – you would have gone to war against them too. But, I’m betting you would not have sacrificed our men at Pearl Harbor to get it going.
Maybe he wouldn’t have, but politicians and militarymen have sacrificed soldiers thousands of times in history.
If you knew what the British Empire had done and was doing and what the American hegemon had done and was doing to southeast Asians, perhaps you would have gone to war against the Western imperialists.
Sorry, I didn’t realize it was the british and Western Imperialists who raped Nanking in 1937. Yes the British weren’t choir boys. And two wrongs don’t make a right. Written in 1890:
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”
Fuzzy Wuzzy broke the line…….
The British were intent on raping Nanking so watching the Japanese take their spoils didn’t sit well.
By mid-WWll, the Brits were wailing about the US taking over the war “Oh, no(not Mr. Bill)the empire is gone”. Yep, they knew it and hated it. The Brits had been kicking ass ever since the Dutch were helped out of Africa(by the Brits).
Many hero’s in order to make their jobs a bit easier, hoping you are more ignorant of the law then they are. It’s the make sh*t up and hope people believe what your saying. And for the most part, it works. Most of the time you do it, even if you know they are wrong.
For example, had a hero tell me I couldn’t park my car facing the wrong way on the public street in front of my house. I am guessing he was too lazy to have to turn his head to look at my plate (since Indiana does only back ones). There is no reason why I couldn’t park facing the wrong way. Dead end street with no traffic with maybe a 20 cars on it a day.
Turns outs its not illegal to park the wrong way on a residential street in my town. Surprise surprise! Read all the town ordinances concerning traffic. Not one word. Also not against any state law either.
So went to the town board meeting with a few neighbors that had seen this hero at work. Informed the town board that I was threatened with a ticket over a non-existent ordinance. Reminded them of the liability the town taxpayers carries when officers make stuff up like that. That the settlements cost in the millions for the worst screw-ups. Told them if I received a ticket over this or if that particular officer was hanging around my house and street, I and my neighbors would sue the town for harassment. That this was my only warning. The boards reply, we will let the police chief know. Only the answer you get from a politician…………….
In solidarity my neighbors all parked the wrong way for a couple weeks to test them. They stayed away. People need to push back more, and places like local town board meetings are one of the few things left to complain. At least the lowest level elected ones can feel threatened about maybe losing an election since most aren’t backed by millions of dollars. You have to start with the little sh*t first.
Shit does indeed roll downhill. That stuff on the edge is part of the higher pile. I once got a ticket for parking the wrong way on a one way street. I was using the curb to get the car up high enough to replace the driveshaft seal on the transmission. I went in the house to clean my hands and had it on the windshield when I got back outside. No telling how long the meter maid had waited.
Wouldn’t put it past a cop to put up a one-way sign on a dead-end street, and then ticket everyone for going the wrong way…..
I always point out, that way more people are begging the cops TO roust and beat more people than are asking them to stop. It is our own fault.
Yup, that is so true. People need to mind their own business. They won’t like it when someone else minds theres. It’s a two way street.
Yeah, and the Orange Liar gets up and makes a speech, and says that the pigs “shouldn’t be so nice”….and people cheer! Which shows ya exactly what is to come, if what we have been seeing for the last 15 years is “nice”, and they are now going to be encouraged to not be that “nice”…..
And then to compound it, half of freaking society is calling the cops/socialist services/etc. on their neighbors for every little piddling thing…or just to try and make trouble for people they don’t like by using the system against them…..
The cop said “why do you look so nervous” and I said, “you have a taser, club, gun and can legally kill me for no reason. I would rather have a gang of crack dealers with uzi’s at my window. At least they might go to jail if they kill me.” (and so I got to sit in his back seat for 3 hours while he called a dog and searched my car)
The standards applied to corrections officers should be applied to cops. Let me explain.
I worked as a state correctional officer in Virginia for 10 years. Would still be there if it had not been necessary to leave to take care of family members. But new officers received warnings from day one:
1. If you are under investigation for possible wrongdoing, expect to be out on unpaid administrative leave. If cleared, you would get the back pay. Paid leave was possible, and paid or unpaid was up to the prison administration, but I knew firsthand of instances of other officers who were placed on unpaid leave. Usually these officers were terminated later or even faced criminal charges. This threat had teeth.
2. Because you have vicarious liability, if you deviate from standard correctional procedures, you have personal civil liability if an inmate sues. The state will not protect you.
The intent was to ensure a professional correctional force. All of Virginia’s prisons have national accreditation today, which was then still a goal.
Cops should face the same two stipulations—especially the first, after any shooting not of an armed civilian posing a threat to others. It seems they always get paid leave after blowing away an unarmed 12–year-old, a/k/a a vacation at taxpayer expense.
Why in the world did you want to wear a clown costume issued by the state of Virginia?
I hope you are now actually doing something productive.
Long story, but corrections was the main job with benefits in the part of Virginia I was in. Like it or not, someone needs to do it, and most of the inmates were in for sex offenses, many against children. Employing people to watch them beats having those inmates roam the street to prey on your kids, which is what some do-gooders would allow to happen…
By the way, the private prison in Southside Virginia has a very bad reputation for disturbances and security problems, but these have all been hushed up. The reason for these issues is that guards there get paid $9–$10 an hour and because of high turnover, the company that runs the prison ends up hiring people whom the state fired, for example. Inmates actually told me they were glad to have been transferred from there.
Why is it OK to leave our kids undefended on the streets where they can be predated?
The fallacy of “sex offenders who prey upon children” being a threat to “your children on the street” is another load of statist bullshit, just like “Getting drugs off of the street is keeping your kids safe”.
I’d be willing to bet serious money that the vast majority of those “sex offenders” either committed no crime (i.e. were entrapped by pigs posing as “underage” willing sex partners) or were caught with willing participants who just happened to be uner the age of “legal consent” (As decreed by the state- and that age has been raised to 16-18 in most states-whereas it used to be as 12-15).
So some guy makes contact with some 15 year old slut who’s tired of being boned by the little boys she knows, and is on the prowl for men….and she sends the dude nekked pitchers[sic] and maybe even sets up a place to do the deed…. That’s a far cry from some guy snatching your innocent kid off of the street…..
Meanwhile, that same 15 year old could be getting boned by 30 different guys her own age, and Uncle doesn’t care…..but if you’re 19, then Uncle cares, ’cause he can suddenly make a slave out of you/make a lot of money off of you/legally deprive you of your Constitutional rights for the rest of your life.
THAT pretty well sums up the “sex offender industry” today in America. And a big fuck you to all the order-followers who have a hand in perpetuating that tyranny.
When I was a teen, a friend had a 14 year-old sister. We’d all go to the movies on weekend nights, but after getting dropped off, the sister would go meet up with her 21 year-old boyfriend, and go to his apartment, and ….well…you can imagine.
No “sex-offender” laws are going to keep her “safe” because she didn’t want to be kept safe. But they sure could’ve ruined the life of her beau if they had been caught. Now what sense does that make?
Darn, too! I would’ve liked that girl if she weren’t so fast and loose….not that she’d have anything to do with the then goofy 15 year-old me! (Although we were friends). She paid the price for her ways….she died a few years ago at the age of 48.
But that’s typical Uncle for ya- they’re always trying to shift the blame, and create criminals where none exist, while portraying the complicit as “victims”- and then they repackage and sell the whole scenario to the ignorant public as though they are doing something wonderful, and somehow “keeping you and yours safe”- and it’s all a smoke and mirrors show, through the use of language designed to villify those who are usually guiltless.
Any time you hear the word “safe” or “free”, you KNOW you are being lied to, and you’d better run the other way.
You are very confused about the difference between child molesters and statutory rape as well as pubescent and prepubescent. Go onto a sex offender registry site and you can conduct research – add up how many registered offenders have charges involving “lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14” and those with offenses involving older teens. It’s not hype – its happening.
And why did you take such a far right turn from the conversation flow?
Also, the fact that you’re talking that way about teens when you are in your late 40’s is terrible. Would you be okay with your 14 year old daughter being with a 21 year old? Or your 14 year old son being with a 21 year old?
I recall when 14 wasn’t a “child”. The OK land rush was filled with 12-14 year old husbands and wives who knew everything they needed to live. They didn’t get to sit around and fiddle their phone or play PS3. It was up at 3 or 4 am, get the cows milked and fed and watered, get in for breakfast and nobody said “cornpones again”. By then it was light and everybody went back out to do whatever chores they must to survive.
Age of consent changes for many reasons but mostly because of govt. meddling.
I’ll give you an example. A coworker and I were leaving out one morning to have fun and games in the patch. We had to stop the truck at a light at a “middle school”. Two girls standing there on the corner and the only way I’d have had of judging them to be jailbait was their waiting on the school to open. They both were quite literally “all there”. I just happened to look to the side and one had been eyeing me so when I looked she gave me “the look”. If you need “the look” explained that may be why you have a problem getting women or thinking they got what they deserved, an early death at 48, because of their sexual lives at an early age.
At 14 when I was young a great many girls were having sex with someone. Their mothers might have been mortified but not their grandmothers who started their family when they were 13. If no one were around to judge their mothers wouldn’t have been mortified nor even surprised. Loretta Lynn was a grand mother at 28. She didn’t think anything was wrong when she got married at 13 or 14 and I’m sure didn’t think her daughter was doing anything wrong.
For thousands of years brides have been promised when they were pre-pubescent and become mothers after puberty. It’s not a cut and dried situation. Never has been, never will.
It’s just the “puritan” heritage, know it alls, who have gained power. Once when DC was only a couple letters people vaguely knew about the govt. had almost no say in their lives. Maybe you think a 13 year old mother is too young but obviously mother nature has different ideas.
8, I agree- nothing wrong with starting a fambly at 13. Actually, the mother of that 14 year-old I mentioned was 13 when she got married (The father was 18).-and they stayed married for life.
That’s a far cry from their daughter though, who spent her years (from who-knows-what-age if she was already well experienced by 14) going from one sleazy guy/ex-con to another, and having abortions and popping out occasional babies like an alley cat, and getting diseases, and dying alone at 48 from fast living….the proverbial sex and drugs and rock ‘n roll.
Some things (Nay, all things!) may not be the province of the state (because the state should not even exist; it is a false god created by the superstitions of people’s minds)….but just because we may rightly seek to keep the state from criminalizing and destroying people’s lives for practicing certain things, does not mean that practicing those things is a good idea. Like drugs. As much as I abhor the “war on [some] drugs” (as Eric rightly says) does not mean that I would ever want to use drugs…. I just don’t want to see others artificially penalized for doing so, any more so than the consequences of their own actions may dictate.
Like CP says, would you want your daughter acting like that 14 year-old? The difference between CP and I, is that CP would have the state intervene to try and impose an artificial morality on those who may not care enough or be diligent enough to practice such; and in so doing, would impose artificial penalties on willing participants, and also ensnare a lot of innocents.
He wants to punish the guy whom your 14 your 14 year-old would willingly have sex with, even if it’s with your consent. I say: I might not agree with what you are doing, but it’s your business, and that of that the participants…and not mine, nor anyone else’s- and i want you to be free to practice that morality, even if it is opposed to my own.
Actually, CP, I would much prefer my hypothetical 14 year-old daughter to be COURTED by a 21 year old man, than to be the sex toy of little boys of her own her age.
That is quite different though than the 14 year-old sneaking up to a 21 year-old’s apartment for sex. If my daughter did that, then I have failed as a parent- both by raising someone who would engage in that behavior, AND by allowing a girl of that age to be unsupervised, so as to have the opportunity to do such a thing. In which case, she is just as much at fault as her partner- and it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to punish one participant and ruin his life, while letting the other go scot-free. But since when did the state become arbiters of and determiners of morality and interpersonal relationships? I seem to have missed where the Constitution authorized that as one of the functions of government.
Yes, I don’t doubt that there are a percentage of perverts who engage in “lewd behavior” with random children/teens; as well as rapists and abductors, etc. but those are a small minority. And I’m sure that “lewd behavior” is a charge applied to anyone and everyone who is caught engaging in any type of activity prohibited between age groups.
98% of this crap is enacted by the state to manufacture criminals.
Why do I speak that way of teens? Have you seen some of these “kids”? Many of them (even pre-teens these days) dress like trashy hookers, and engage in various acts of sex regularly. “Sexting” occurs regularly in every junior high-school in this country.
I’m not arguing in favor of such conduct. I’m saying that such is a result of a debased culture and bad parenting; and the delegating of parental responsibilities to the state; and that legislating statutes which penalize one party’s involvement merely based on the technicality of age, is wrong and unjust- and just like the “war on drugs” does absolutely nothing to address the real probelm, but instead creates more problems.
When I was 15, the TEN year-old niece of the “fast” 14 year-old whom I mentioned in my previous post, flashed me! Turns out, even at THAT age (and this was in the 70’s!) she had an appetite for sex, and “liked” adults (or, apparently, anyone who would “do her”). Me being me, I made it a point after seeing that, to never be in a situation where I’d be alone with that girl- but it just goes to show you- this is what goes on in the world- and putting the responsibility for it on those who are least responsible for it’s existence, and making criminals of them, is more perverted than most forms of sex I could think of.
Traditionally, throughout history up until recently, it was the norm for a teenage girl to marry an established older man. In some places that is still the case; I think it is still common among the Amish. Now that THAT has been essentially criminalized, and instead, young girls practice years of fornication amongst those of like age, and don’t marry until older (and almost always already having someone else’s kids), look at the state of marriage and the family! (My own nephew was dating a 15 year-old when he was 20/21. They’ve been married now for over 30 years. How many marriages from the mid 80’s when they were married, are still intact like that today? -But technically, the state would make my nephew out a criminal- and if the girl’s parents hadn’t approved of him, he would have been labeled a “sex offender” for the rest of his life; and instead of making a good living and providing for his family, he’d probably be a janitor or factory worker today- such is the nature of the state- to have such power over people’s lives, where one can be destroyed just based on the technicality of a date or the whim of an uninvolved party.)
Really, it’s not that I have much sympathy for most of these guys who end up in the can, as I really don’t approve of what they do, any more so than I approve of prostitution….but the thing is: UNLESS we are talking about abducting/raping/exposing oneself to random people on the street, the rest should not be of any concern to the state.
Parents should determine the “age of consent”- not some stranger (who is likely a pervert/child-molester/homo himself) who lives off of your taxes, and whom you have never even met.
If I had any kids, I guarantee you that they would be raised in such a manner to ensure that they did not engage in sex until they were married- be they boys or girls; just as I was raised.
I agree with some of your points. Especially when you wrote “traditionally, throughout history up until recently, it was the norm for a teenage girl to marry an established older man.”
Classic movies highlight the norm of yester-years (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Dirty Dancing, Dazed and Confused). My great-grandparents, and their parents, were married with an age difference that wouldnt be accepted today.
The science of sex teaches us that women are innately attracted to men who have the markers of higher testosterone because such a male partner would make a good protector and likely to have desirable genes. On the other end – men are hard wired when they are born to be attracted to pubescent markers in women. Naturally, a younger female has the markers that suggest they can bear healthy children (breasts, child rearing hips, etc.).
The difference between today and then is the maturity difference.
People give today’s teens too much credit in the way of maturity. The average teen of your time, or even my time, is much different from today’s teens. They are very immature because of extended adolescence that is so common in the new millennium.
So, the average 14 year old from the 80s or 70s is far more emotionally mature than a 14 year old of today. In India, a 14 year old girl would be more similar to a 21 year old in USA. The maturity difference is the reason we have these laws. Teens may be attracted to an older guy but it is not okay in the US in 2017. Consider the film ‘American Beauty’ and what happens in the end when the girl realizes she doesnt really want sex. Kevin Spacey’s character (ugh, the irony that I am using this as an example) realizes that she is just a girl.
I assure you that the majority of sex offenders behind bars have committed terrible sex crimes. There are those rare instances that an individual was sentenced unfairly, but rare.
It is interesting that there is no mention of the deluge of soy proteins and phytoestrogens that are being shoved down the throats of our young children, with the effect of producing 10 year old girls that are menstruating and feminized young men whose natural progression into puberty is being hijacked.
There are more than enough girls being dressed up as much older young women, some of which are being socialized into sexuality long before even 10 years old, and so, being taught that promiscuity is natural and expected of females in this society.
Sexual maturation can’t be controlled or manipulated by statute any more than any other biological progression without producing those whose maturation is highly manipulated and subsequently twisted.
If the majority of sex offenders behind bars have committed terrible sex crimes, it has to be assumed that the majority who escaped prosecution have wound up in positions of control in our society that allow them to commit such crimes in places where they will never be detected by others who are also committing them, and will produce large numbers of people who really don’t know the difference between deviance and normality well enough to pass laws that won’t carry their perversities into the halls of power and institute corruption as normality.
Any time that non-violent acts between consenting adults are criminalized and used to shame some into hiding such under the premise that it promotes civility and proper behavior, it acts as a guarantee that the most corrupt will wind up as the bar.
The crap in the food; the perverted sexualized media; the “behavorial drugs”; sex “education” [graphic, dogmatic, and illustrated, and at a young age, when no kid would ever be thinking about such things], and the fact that we are in the midst of a societal breakdown, in which all morality has been divorced from sexual behavior; where a kid can be sleeping a room next to their older sibling, who has their “sex partner” living in their bedroom…. It’s Brave New World come to life…
I was once lambasted on a forum by a 14 year-old girl for being a prude, because i advocated traditional morality!!!!!
How sad is that!
Morality has been divorced from sexual behavior since both became codified.
That, and the faggot agenda which the state and their Holly[got]wood media push- ya know “One’s ‘sexual preference’ doesn’t matter” and all of that….
Bill,
Phytoestrogens are not the same as estrogen. Its a myth. Plenty of bodybuilders take soy protein. Its a cheap complete source of protein. If it caused a rise in estrogen no bodybuilder would take it and supplement companies wouldn’t peddle it.
I scratching my head wondering why there is an argument here at all or with anything else youve brought up.
There was a fair conversation between me and Nunzio and then you chime in with an argument that had nothing to do with what we were really discussing.
On this site most comments are focused on the prevalence of misinformation in today’s society (ex: global warming vs. climate change, “safety” mandates in cars, police being “heroe’s”, speeding being considered dangerous, etc.).
So, quit painting a target around me. You’ve missed the point.
In our society most associate sex offenders as pedophiles or rapists. I separated that in my responses.
Then the discussion moved to the percentage of sex offenders who committed actual sex offenses. Neither you or Nunzio cited any actual research when responding. Do you really consider yourself a Libertarian when you dont use research? I can cite my sources and am not misinformed on the subject.
Instead you comment that it would be boring to conduct research……..
Thats the same type of lazy rock throwing the left, Antifa, SJW, and BLM’s use when trying to shove crap down the rest of our throats.
On the point about sex offenders vs. rapist/ pedophiles – we are on the same page. Not every sex offender is a pedo/ rapist. Its not okay to lump them together – they are different in some ways and should be tried differently.
Looking to justify or rationalize any of the behavior is the problem.
That high schooler wants all sorts of instant gratification – we don’t give it to her/ him because they “want” it. They don’t want to go to school, do their homework, or even work a real job. Why? Because (many) aren’t MATURE enough to make those decisions. Are they’re a lot of adults who think the same way? Yes. That’s the 21 year old moron sleeping with the 14 year old.
Speaking of research, I just tried doing a little. Not coming up with any statistic for the percentage of “child molesters” convicted of statutory rape, so far…..but what I did find, is that even young teens can be convicted of statutory rape, and put on the “sex offender” list- like a 13 year old girl in CA. who had consentual sex with a 122 year old boy….
It’s hilaious- they treat these kids as if they are pure innocent waifs….and in reality, many of them are men/women “of the world” before they hit 13. (Thanks, filthy pooblik skools!)
And I’m coming up with “lewdness” and “assault” or “rape” even in consentual situations, like with the 18 year old in [I believe it was MS.] who was convicted of those things for having sex with his 14 year-old girlfriend, whom he later married. [Luckily, after review by the governor, he was finally removed from the sex offender list- a small consolation for going to jail and losing dozens of jobs and apartments in the meantime].
I see nothing to contradict what I initially surmised….that much of the “sex offender” industry is just another attempt by Uncle to criminalize everyday life and interpersonal relationships.
On another note, was thinking:
A good parallel to this discussion, would be the Pitcairn Island Sex Scandal. If you’re not familiar/don’t remember it, CP, Google it. It’s pretty much all we’ve been discussing in microcosm (a very short read).
Umm…that should be a “12 year old boy” not a 122 year old…..
I’m not going to argue with someone who is as ignorant about hormones as you just demonstrated that you are.
Bodybuilders die at a younger age, on average, than those who don’t jack with their hormones.
But what about nudity? Mankind has been nude or nearly nude for tens of thousands of years; yet nowadays nudity = sexual perversion in the eyes of you Puritannical individuals! Bible thumpers should ask themselves if “God’s Image” is indecent before replying to my post. God never said that nudity is sinful or equals sexual acts.
When were human beings born clothed?
Brian,
Are you asking from a statist perspective, or a personal one?
From a personal one: I don’t think any of us would care to see our grandmothers nekked; or to have our 7 year old daughters looking at a 35 year-old on the street with a boner; or a 70 year-old with a nub and a nutsack down to his knees…. I don’t know about you, but I’d shun such people. (Heck, I get grossed out going to the grocery store in the summer and seeing fat women and skanks in thongs and flip-flops…)
From a statist perspective: Yes, why should the state determine one’s taste or morality? Like everything else they do, their authority to do so is illegitimate, and only kept alive by the people who think it proper to use coercion to enforce their will.
As long as coercion is absent, there isn’t a need for a law.
…and if no coercion exists, Uncle will make a law, so that it does!
>”And why did you take such a far right turn from the conversation flow?”<
I guess you haven't been here long! : D
….the same way a discussion about gas mileage morphs into a debate about the Moon Landing….
That's the way things go…and the more so with me around!
Actually though, THIS discussion isn't so far off- as the subject of the article is about the state's henchmen; and you just happened to bring up one aspect of the state's penile….errr…I mean penal system which serves to illustrate a parallel example.
Be careful with the assumptions – I am sure we would agree on many things. In responding to your post I looked for middle ground.
It’t not true that I would have the Gov intervene if the family were to consent. In fact, I think its still legal in Mississipi for a girl to get married at 15 without parental consent.
In my original response I was pointing out that your belief that the majority of sex offenders were incarcerated for statutory rape. There’s a huge difference between a child and a pubescent teen.
And the part about the 10 year old flashing you…… terrible. A 10 year old is most definitely a child.
A 10 year old girl who is menstruating is biologically a woman.
What conclusion should someone have after reading that?
If you chose to response to that one small point then you also chose to ignore the rest of what I wrote.
We were discussing the difference between statutory rape and grossly under-aged girls.
And you made the statement, in effect, that a girl isn’t a woman until the law says she is when they are, increasingly, beginning to menstruate before their teens.
CP, I’m glad that we have that middle ground (Then again, it really doesn’t take much for two people to agree that diddling little kids is wrong…. : D ) I’m still kind of wondering how you know the details that distinguish the raper of the 8 year old…from boyfriend of the horny teen? I mean, maybe you DO have access to that info- but I don’t know how, as they’d look indistinguishable on paper.
Yeah….being flashed by a 10 year-old was the creepiest thing ever! And ironically, I was a teen from the suburbs of NYC (very genteel suburbs, at the time), when we moved to a small town in MO.- and I had never encountered anything like that where i was from….so it was pretty shocking.
It wasn’t just that, either. The 10 year old had “a thing for me” from ther moment she met me [This is creeping me out just writing about it!]- She’d chase me around and try and kiss me!!
I thought that was harmless.
Then there was the time at her house, when I went to use the bathroom, but she was in there taking a shower or bath….and said “Just come on in!” (No thanks!)
And then the flashing!
Then I stopped going to that house! (I used to go to hang out with the 14 year-old…she would babysit her sister’s kids there).
That was one messed up family! At my then young age, I had nwever been exposed to such people. All of my relatives and families of friends, etc. were upstanding people.
The funny thing was, that the 10 year old “advertised”. The 14 year-old, ironically, didn’t.
Later, in my c. 20’s, I remember reading an article in a Reader’s Digest or somewhere similar, about a 10 year-old who used to look for men who would have her. I don’t think I would have believed that article, if I hadn’t seen the aforementioned 10 year-old with my own eyes trying to do the same with me!
It’s a strange world out there….and what I saw then seems to be mild compared with what goes on today.
Thanks for writing that. And LOL… yes im glad we could find middle ground about it being wrong diddling an 8 year old.
To answer your questions – on sex offender registries their crime is listed. The crime will distinguish the age, though not specifically, it will give you a good idea. “lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14,”
“Rape by force,” “sexual penetration of victim with foreign object by force,” “lewd and lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 years old”.
See the difference between the first and last example?
The law classifies these in a manner that helps determining the difference in age.
Ah! O-K. Thanks for the info. I didn’t know it was that detailed.
Darn! The place where you worked must have been where they shipped the real dregs!
I’d still bet though, if you scrutinized the overall national data at the state level though, that it would bear out that those pervs are truly a tiny percentage of the whole.
15 in MS requires consent of a parent. 16 doesn’t.
As some here have already stated, consent laws are fabrications by government to control interpersonal relationships. They vary from state to state and from national government to national government. It even varies as to time period. Before 2008 in Canada the AOC was 14, it is now 16.
I find this all rather contradictory. in some states if a male over 18 dates a female under 18, the male can be charged with stat rape. Yet if either a male or female commits a murder and they are under 18, they can be tried as adults. So you can’t screw because you are a child but if you kill you are an adult. What a crock of shit. I know of a case where a 12 year old killed someone and the courts decided to try the 12 year old as an adult. Have sex with 12 year old and you go to jail.
I personally know someone that was convicted of stat rape because he didn’t card everyone that attended a party he gave and one of the attendees was a 13 year old girl. She got sopping drunk and her parents found out where and how she got drunk then demanded the state prosecute for him stat rape. Anyone with any sense can see that some 13 year old girls can easily pass for 18. He got probation but is now on the SO list. He no longer entertains at his house because he can’t be sure if some underage snit will sneak in and he refuses to stand by the door and card everyone that enters his house. I personally do not blame him either. BTW, he never personally touched the girl and he didn’t know she was at his party until he was arrested by the City of Memphis police department.
In another instance, An 18 year old male was convicted of stat rape of a minor in Wisconsin. He had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 17. She wound up pregnant but by that time he turned 18 and so the parents of the now 17 year old girl demanded he be charged with stat rape. He was convicted, too! When the jurors were interviewed they said they felt bad but the law is the law.
The above is the reason I would not trust a trial by jury. People in this country are so stupid they are really not qualified to sit on a jury. A properly educated and informed jury would have never convicted the accused because they would have known the law in this case was being misapplied. Of course, the reason the jurors convicted the accused is directly a result of the government indoctrination they received at pubic skools.
Bottom line is the state/gov is evil in everything it does and the state/gov always will be.
Morning, Guitar!
I have a story along these lines, a cautionary tale for men:
About six years ago, when I was still married, my wife and I took one of our critters to the vet. The doc had female staff, including one woman who appeared to be in her early-mid 20s.
So I assumed, at any rate.
Well, this woman – to the great annoyance of my wife – made goo goo eyes at me and rubbed up against me in the examining room – which was flattering, of course. Luckily for me I was happily married (so I thought) and so for me it was just an amusing pat on the proverbial back from an attractive woman.
I found out later this “woman” was a 17-year-old high school kid.
Now, had I been single then as I am now, I would have probably asked her out – me thinking she was a woman in her early-mid 20s. I certainly would not have “carded” her. It never occurred to me that she might be less than 21 years old.
As I noted above, she looked like a grown woman in her early-mid 20s. Sometimes, girls in their mid-late teens do. Sometimes, it is very hard to tell a 17 year old from a 24 year old.
I look back on that and can almost feel the breeze of the bullet as it whizzes past my head!
Morning eric, me too on this one although I probably wouldn’t have asked for a date being married and all…..that entails…..arrggghh.
Nearly a decades ago I was at a family get-together of my nephews and nieces, all of which I hadn’t seen in many years.
My older sister’s oldest boy had married a real nut job and gotten a divorce but had a child with her I hadn’t seen since she was 5 or so.
I’m just sitting around drinking a cold one and wonder who this hot woman with the slinky black dress was.
I asked the nephew holding this soiree and he laughed and said “Pretty hot eh? How old do you think she is? Ah I’d guess 26 since everything was in the right place in the right amounts, no baby fat, just a timeless face and great body. He then broke up and said “That’s your great niece and she’s 15”. Damn, you coulda fooled me….and did fool me. No way I would have judged her as jailbait.
The last apartment complex I lived in there was this girl who looked and dressed late HS age give or take a year. But she was always hanging around 12 year old boys which I found odd. Then one day I heard her speak. It was the voice of a 12 year old girl.
Ironically enough, it was probably a game she was playing on your ex. Your reaction was only a bonus. Notice this never happens when you are or appear single? I have noticed a type of woman who are extremely vicious towards other women. Women who are part of a couple that is. She did it to get a rise out of your wife. Women can be very vicious towards men, but the worst is reserved for other women. Appeared to work too. I bet you never went to that vet again.
I’ve had things like Eric’s experience happen to me while single. From teenage girls to grown women. They aren’t frequent, rather rare, but they do happen.
Some from taken women, some from teenage girls. All were quite bizarre and all I could think of doing was not react to it and not end up in some drama.
That is some sick stuff, eh, Guitarman?!
And those are perfect examples of what I am trying to point-out to CP- the state creates nothing but injustice and manufactures criminals where none exist (While often aiding and abetting real crime- when not actually perpetrating such themselves).
It’s like every horny teenager has to walk around with a law book and or consult an attorney before he pops a boner!
Meanwhile, they’re sexualizing babies in the pooblik skools, from the time they’re toddlers….then they turn them into criminals when they act upon what they’ve had drilled into them and when they turn into nymphos at 9.
And then if some perv rapes your innocent kid, and you kill him, as is fitting, YOU go to jail! Oh, you know, you’re supposed to let the state handle it, so they can feed and shelter the perv for years at the taxpayer’s expense, and then turn him loose again to repeat his crimes.
And juries…yeah…your fate rests in the hands of 12 people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty!!!!!
And I can agree with most of what you say there, CP- and even add that it’s even worse than that, because most older men- even in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s today are immature. There are guys near 40 who sit around and play video games all day.
Foolishness among teens and even among young men is so common, that it’s come to be expected as the norm. And a huge percentage of people of all ages are more concerned about just satisfying their immediate lusts, and/or what material benefits they can get from someone, than anything else.
These are the natural consequences of a society which has been”liberated” from it’s traditions, religion, and values.
From what I have seen though, I would disagree about the majority of sex-offenders behind bars being there for having done terrible things. Maybe where you worked, it could have been true; maybe it was a place where the long-term worst cases were sent or something- but I have seen too many examples over the years to believe that what you say is indicative of the whole system.
A good percentage in the system are there for pornography- looking at pictures. And while I don’t condone it, it’s still, looking at pictures which they had no part in making. (We’re told that [supposedly] looking at pornography does not increase the chances of those who do so committing rape, but actually lessens them; so if that be the case, why would it not be the same if the models are under a given age?)
And as I’ve said, anothjer good percentile are behind bars via entrapment.
Add to that, the very common scenario: Teenage girl runs off with her older boyfriend, and is declared “missing”; they are apprehended at some point; boyfriend is charged with kidnapping [statutory] and/or sex with a minor/etc. Girl is returned home with zero consequence. Boyfriend goes to jail where he gets beaten up every day for “sex crimes against a minor”; is on the sex-offender list for the rest of his life; is now a convicted felon, with all that that entails….yada, yada….
In-fact, the above is so common, every time someone mentions that there is a “missing teen alert”, I always tell them exactly how it will end- as described above- and sure enough…that has ALWAYS turned out to be the way it is.
I have seen so many examples of all of the above, that, for what you say to be true, [i.e. for the majority to have committed far worse things] things like rapes, abductions and exposures would have to be so common that we’d be seeing such every day in virtually every town……but [thankfully] things like that are pretty uncommon, to the point where one may only hear of such things in their own local area once or twice in a lifetime….vs. the examples I give, which are frequent occurrences. [And again, not that I condone those things… But it’s more a case of criminalizing life, or putting the greater responsibility of the easier target, like when they prosecute a bar tender for serving a drunk who later goes out and kills someone in a DWI).
And PS, CP:
Looking at somebody’s rap sheet (or whatever they call it) how can you really tell exactly what a convict has done?
If someone’s in for “rape and kidnapping” a minor…..can you tell the difference between the perv who snatches an 8 year-old [shudder] off the street and drags her into the woods and rapes her, vs. the guy is caught taking a road trip with his 15 year-old “oler than her years” girlfriend, who gets busted and charged with those same things, when they walk in and find them having consentual sex in a motel room?
Again, if you go onto a sex offender registry site its pretty specific about the crime they committed.
THAT is a rabbit hole I do not want to go down…..
Some things you can’t “un see”. (Like that damn 10 year old!)
Being listed on a sexual offender registry precludes the need for specificity. It is like being on the most wanted list without being wanted.
Hey Nunzio,
I am responding to your last comment you wrote at 08:39 pm Pacific time. There was no ‘reply’ option on that text chain.
I think there was a misunderstanding as you wrote that you were looking for a “Statistic for the percentage of “child molesters” convicted of statutory rape”.
I thought we were discussing percentage of child molesters and/or rapists vs. those convicted of statutory rape? At least that is what I was writing about.
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/statutory-rape-america
Look at the laws – most states have laws that protect the types of consensual relationships you discussed. For instance In Florida 16-17 year olds can legally engage in sexual activities with a partner as old as 23.
When I first responded I was debating you on your comment that the majority of sex offenders were actually convicted of statutory rape.
Look at the website – the argument you were making wouldnt really apply in many states. The majority of sex offenders are not being convicted of statutory rape. They are being convicted of “lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14” or “rape by force.”
Last thought – I think you mixed me up with someone else in this post when you commented on my workplace. I dont work with sex offenders.
Have a good evening and enjoy the read.
Hi, CP,
Thanks for starting a new column, so we don’t have to hunt for a reply button [An annoying limitation of WordPress…]
I’m in a bit of a hurry here, so I’ll keep this brief [for once in my life… 😉 ]
I haven’t misunderstood what you said, nor am I confusing you with anyone else. [I don’t believe I have ever debated with ANYONE on this particular subject before]
What I am trying to say, is that I believe (and I could be wrong- we shall see) that charges like “forcible rape” and “lewd and lascivious behavior” are applied indiscriminately to anyone who does the deed with someone, and the age differences happen to fall outside of the convoluted state-defined limits of “decency”.
E.g. a dude who just turned 19 bones a willing girl the day before her 14th birthday, and gets convicted, the charge doesn’t read “statutory rape”- it reads “forcible rape” and whatever other nonsense they tack on to describe their little tryst; much in the same way that if you’re driving down the road and a pedestrian darts out in front of you from nowhere- there being nothing you could have done to avoid the accident- and he dies, and it just so happens that the machine says that your BAC was .001 above whatever your state’s definition of “DWI” is, you will be convicted of DWI and manslaughter.
So, be it sex offenses or DWI or whatever, I know of no distinctions which would be readily apparent in a person’s charges which would actually show the details which would make what we are discussing distinguishable from a true predator. Just, as previously mentioned, how the 19 year-old on the road with his 15 year old girlfriend gets convicted of “kidnapping”. So how do you distinguish THAT vs. some perv who does actually kidnap a random stranger off of the street?
You don’t; unless you look at the actual details of each case.
If statutory rape was abolished and forcible rape enforced correctly, the problems would be solved among secularists.
Forcible rape can be prevented with mere numbers….like .357; .45…..
There are men in prison because a girl lied about her age. Men who took the precaution to ask first.
The girl on the other hand presented herself as a legal adult in order to participate in adult activity but has no responsibility.
The man is treated as if he lured her, forced her, etc as a criminal would have when all he did was ask and sometimes it was the woman that did the asking and he consented. Doesn’t matter to the law.
Sometimes the girl doesn’t even bring the charges, her parents do. She admits everything and the man still goes to prison.
Even checking ID can fail if she has a fake one and it the man doesn’t detect that it is fake. Still his responsibility.
And then there is the criminalizing or the high social penalties of being anything but a smooth player in the adult world.
Of course men who don’t enter this ever increasingly dangerous mine field are just weak and afraid and need to ‘man-up’.
Society is warped and sick and it’s going to fall apart at some point.
One would have to be pretty bored to do research on a sex offender registry site.
Ain’t THAT the truth, Bill!
I couldn’t even imagine logging on to such a site…
Imagine working day in and day out with that crowd…..
Yikes!
They all work in police departments…
HAhahaha! True!
[My comment is too short, so WP wouldn’t post it…so I’m adding this…]
Since most of those same laws are neither constitutional nor have a damaged complainant, enforcing them constitutes selective enforcement.
So, maybe some “rapes” are the woman getting caught cheating and saying “he forced me”. Like the guy that beats the crap out of his wife and says, “she made me hit her” or, “the alcohol did it!” Or the wife who accuses the EX in divorce court of “touching” the daughter, or whatever. Fact is, the Judicial system sucks at finding the truth. And a life long punishment of being on the kook list is pretty wak. What it does to us in our daily lives is horrible. The fear of that list is real. I have maybe NEVER hugged either of my daughters because I was scared they would go to school, and some jackass counselor would ask them if “daddy ever touches you” or something. Sad. Very sad. They probably think I don’t love them.
In a less despotic police state, a sensible and practical solution would be to require all pigs to carry a personal liability bond, which they would have to pay for out of their own pay- just as we are forced to carry liability insurance just to drive our car down the road.
And just like auto insurance or other forms of insurance/bonds available on the free market, the price of maintaining coverage would be based on performance. Piggy get a complaint? It would be like us getting a traffic ticket….ins./bond goes up, because he/she/it is a higher risk.
Piggy get in trouble/have claims which have to be paid by the ins. co.? That pig would soon be priced out of the market. That (in a saner world, where pigs wouldn’t be protected from the consequences of their crimes; and where they would also be heartily prosecuted criminally for their misdeeds) would ensure that flatfoots treaded very carefully, because what they do would affect their wallet and their ability to continue being a pig.
But of course, we will never see anything like this. Just the opposite- we will see more and more abuse, with no accountability- for that is the very reason for the existence of these pigs: To do the bidding of the politicians who aren’t accountable; and spread fear, so that people will mindlessly obey.
Hitler was not at all concerned that the SS did not play nice. Neither are our politicians. The pigs, being the actual matrix between the “rulers” and the subjects; the enforcers of the rulers will, are just there to show force and elicit fear- as that is how you get 300 million people to march to the beat which is being played by a few hundred.
Meanwhile, WE are supposed to carry insurance now just to exist! [Obozocare]. While our porkers are making the Mexican Federales look benevolent by comparison.
Nun, before I went to Mexico I was told I’d be the ONLY person driving a specific vehicle in the entire country. Once there, and after covering many hundreds of miles and several cities and a great many small towns I realized he was correct. You will never see a Black pickup in Mexico, not in the actual country excepting the border towns. You won’t ever see a an ext. cab with a long bed although maybe a long bed white company pickup and not a diesel. After a while passing many Federales at twice the PSL(80….for the most part…..km/hr that is)I began to think they weren’t as hostile as I had been led to believe. If you weren’t going to jack with two Norte Americano’s in a black, one ton ext. cab long bed pickup doing 100 mph then what was the criteria? I still don’t know and never had a hint of trouble from cops or Federales there….even at border checks where they looked in bed tool boxes….briefly.
I know one guy who got stopped near the border by a Federale who stopped him doing 100 mph. He just motioned for him to hold it down. The guy said Sorry, just didn’t realize how fast I was going. The Federale said “slow down some”. That was it.
Yeah, 8, In all of my years, I’ve only heard of one actual case of a bad experience in Mexico- a Yank couple driving a motorhome in Meh-hee-co….gets stopped. They get out of the RV….the fat brown porkers get in and drive away with the RV, and that was the last they saw of it.
That’s one incident I’ve heard of….vs. uncountable incidents of far more severe consequences HERE.
Shoot- it’s hard to find an extended/crew cab P/U here with a long bed! That black must sizzle in Peedro’s sun!
Nun, no more so than Texas sun. As I age I get more sensitive to heat and cold. Lots of Tx. folk carry something(pair of work gloves)to open vehicle doors. Blackie had those handles you could flip up real quick as it opened the door so you can catch the inside of the door and fully open it. My red pickup as just as bad.
Those people in that camper may not even have been accosted by real cops. Mexican cops seemed to me to talk their job officially and were very courteous. I think they go out of their way to show they’re more courteous and civilized than Norte Americano’s.
You’re correct about an ext. cab long bed. I’ve looked high and low and found none for sale. There’s still plenty but nobody wants to sell them and keep them forever. I’ve seen some obviously not running with weeds grown up around them and inquired about them. Nope, not for sale. I was the same way. My truck was looked like new when I rolled it and I had people frequently try to buy it. Since I have no memory of that day I can’t say what happened but I’d been run off the same curve several times by somebody in a new crewcab Dodge dually. It was uncanny how we’d meet there a few times a week. GM’s are such junky pickups though that I drove it 30 miles and used 4WD to get out of the barditch. I don’t remember it but found the tracks and it was in 4WD and the diesel engine full of Amsoil was fine and dandy.
Not too long ago, there was a story about some teenage Texas restaurant workers who refused to serve police officers. The “news media” painted the employees as being “disrespectful” to these police officers…these young people ended up losing their jobs as a result..
Now for the rest of the story:
It turns out that these young teenage restaurant workers were being harassed constantly by these same officers. From being stopped on flimsy pretexts to being issued traffic citations, (which could be a whole week’s pay for these young people) and, in general, being abused by these cops, “just because they could”. these young workers fought back the only way they could…
Well you know the untold story of the Columbine shooters were that they were kidnapped by Columbine police for graffiti and sodomized by those heroic police. That is the reason why the Columbine “investigation” records remain secret. Seeing how they were raped by police, you sort of understand their disregard for human life.
The atrocities “our” Israeli trained police inflict on vast numbers of us every single day and are celebrated in the media for, one must wonder why there isn’t a daily Columbine. We truly are all Palestinians now, unless of course we could have Israhelli dual citizenship.
So much is going to take please, so very soon. I do wonder what future historians will write if they are allowed to. No one is safe in America, or the world now. The sooner vast numbers of us realize that and do whatever is in our power to our last breaths, the sooner there may be a modicum of safety.
A martyr is celebrated, a victim is only a statistic, if they are even acknowledged.
Hi Thought,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I am appalled to admit that I had never heard that backstory until now.
It completely changes the narrative.
In no way am I endorsing or making apologies for the murder of innocent third parties (e.g., the other kids at the school). But if what you describe happened to those two boys, I get why what happened happened.
I came across that narrative years ago. It makes too much sense. But, as always do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Something set them off, they had been arrested recently prior to their going off.
When it comes to police, so much goes unreported. I know what I witness personally and the things that go on around me are simply staggering.
It certainly fits the porker’s typical M.O.- Anyone remember poor Abner Louima- the Haitian immigrant who was sodomized with a broom handle by the NYPD?
It probably had more to do with Harris having been removed from SSRIs cold turkey the day before Columbine.
Upon what credible evidence do you make such an assertion?
Credible, by definition, excludes anything porky or porky’s helpers have reported.
Harris’ psychiatrist, who was following orders from above.
such backlash from withcrawal from SSRI drugs takes a bit longer than overnight…… besides, it seems those punks had been scheming on their plan for at least a few days before they pulled the job. Had to line up a few “details”, they being underage and all and unable to just go out and buy handguns and ammunition.
This is he only “respected” news source that supports the “conspiracy theory” of police having raped the Columbine killers before their rampage: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/former-colorado-sheriff-accused-of-trying-to-trade-drugs-for-sex.html
Another great piece Eric.
American copping, at all levels, is completely out of control. You will trust these people at your peril ESPECIALLY if you’ve done nothing wrong.
Can you imagine the psychotic, sadistic assholes that populate “policeone.com”? There is no way dealing with the Stasi or NKVD would be worse.
Thanks, Aljer!
It baffles me that so many people are so indifferent to law enforcers brazenly ignoring the actual law; do not get up in arms when any law enforcer abuses the law.
But then I realize: It’ precisely the desired outcome of a system that systematically destroys the ability of most people to think logically, to apply principles (and to care about them).
People don’t believe what’s explained in detail about most cases. My wife and I weren’t convicted on original charges. My federal lawyer said I wasn’t going to beat a federal case. I can prove them wrong I said. On how many charges? They have unlimited time and budget. They can finally come up with some charge you can’t really defend yourself against since it makes no sense to begin with. The federal lawyer said he’d won one case in 20 years. But you were highly recommended said I. I do a good job of getting the least charge he said. You can’t beat the feds, ask Martha and she had big bucks. How much money do you have for me to keep them finding newer, worser charges? And that was the point. Notice even the high placed govt. people with other higher placed people wanting them convicted end up convicted. No telling how many people in the Trump fiasco didn’t break a law but will turn state’s evidence to get a lesser conviction or lesser time.
Even though we had no illegal guns they still had a charge involving them that amounted to an offer of 5 years per gun. It doesn’t take a lot of smarts to understand 250-300 years in prison. Federal time isn’t like state time where you don’t have to do the entire sentence and even if it was, once again it doesn’t take a genius to figure half of 250. And the original charge had nothing to do with guns. Federal law, the gift that keeps on giving. It’s just as forever as a diamond and just as hard.
Here is an answer to what type of sadists are cops:
SHOCK VIDEO: POLICE SHOOT DOG, FORCE OWNER TO CUT OFF ITS HEAD
‘This was very traumatic for the kids and I’
https://www.infowars.com/shock-video-police-shoot-dog-force-owner-to-cut-off-its-head/
That is the only way a dog can be tested for rabies. Normally carried out at a vets office however.
Eric,
I was reading something about a google employee that was fired and thought of you. I started coming to your website (summer 2012) and was mortified when I learned what they did to you because of your ideas. This issue is only getting worse and I feel like this memo, that got this google employee fired, relates to what they did to you and your website. Im not sure if you’ve already come across this but here is the link:
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f
Hi CP,
Thanks for this – and the kind words!
The good news is that reader support has enabled me to survive the Googling… so far. This is the only way I know to end-run both the corporate and government pincers. The mainstream media has been completely co-opted; the only “diversity” they desire is that of skin and genitalia. Homogeneity of thought/ideas is required.
Well, fish heads (extra crunchy) for them!
Extra crunchy my ass, swordfish……
That was a well-thought out memo and one I’d agree with.
One thing he mentions is dangerous jobs with men suffering 93% of deaths. This last round in the patch saw a great deal more women but not in the actual physical construction but simply figureheads and “supervisors” in fields they had never really performed the work in. How do I know they hadn’t performed the work? They didn’t have the bodies for it. You can’t climb 200′ towers with those bodies…..period.
I asked one woman supervisor for a couple feet of #14/16/18 wire, whichever was available. She found a paired cable of two #14 and split off a couple feet using an electricians knife, one of the most useless knives to ever be used in commercial electrical work. Not just useless but dangerous. She said if she even pulled out any other type of knife she’d be fired. Probably so if she were observed by somebody who gave a shit. I saw other electricians using droppoint knives. She used that knife in the most dangerous way imaginable except for the blade facing away from her but if you spent all day taking that long to just cut off a pieces of wire you’d be replaced soon. I thanked her, whipped out my little Buck Prince and in a few seconds had both wires skinned out like she couldn’t do with that “electricians” knife….which is really meant for house wiring, i.e. “Romex”. She said she be fired for doing what I did. I don’t know I’ve ever cut myself with that technique but I damned near put an Electricians knife through the palm of my hand trying to strip some 3 conductor #2 pvc covered wire…in the cold. That was my last time to touch that knife except to throw it in the toolbox where it’s now rusted….if it’s even there.
Another young woman I saw occasionally perform physical work in construction simply had on the steel toe boots, and insulated coveralls since it was cold and took stuff like paperwork on a holder from here to there. At no time have I ever seen a woman in construction with her feet off the ground although I’m sure it’s happened if lying on your back qualifies.
Not once did I ever see one of those male construction people working the newborn ward. They were being discriminated against no doubt since I know for a fact they’d all have rather taken care of babies than be out there in the blowing freezing rain.
My point being there really are reasons other than bias why one sex can perform a job better than another. Just sit at the truck stop fuel pumps for a few hours and see how many women get out of the drivers seat. You’ll see one, now and again. They are all driving trucks that require them to only drive, clean a windshield and fill out a log book and occasionally change trailers.
A pair of linemans scissors is the first thing I grab for stripping wire. Not just twisted pair, I use them for everything. Dikes are the second choice. I’ve never found any purpose built wire strippers to be worth a crap at actually stripping wire.
I was speaking of a cable containing two pair of coated wire. Just sliding a knife along the edge and removing a tiny amount of insulation lets you pull the entire insulated wire from the sheathing.
I have two sets of T&B strippers 35 years old that still work fine and have the best screw cutters of anything I’ve had. Great insulated and uninsulated crimpers. I had a name brand set of insulated/uninsulated strippers since doing control work you can’t cut into the wire, esp. solid wire. It can and will break from vibration sending an entire system down.
I went out on a job that was down, found some wires broken from being stripped incorrectly. Boss called and wanted to know the problem so I told him. He’d done the work a couple days earlier. He didn’t reply.
Much like the days work saved by an acquaintance that had and knew how to use a toner to prevent the ripping out and replacement of a wall of drywall to find the quad box that was buried before the wires were connected that hadn’t been.
Dykes for stripping, and fags(as the English say) for smoking….sounds about right. 😉 Either way, a pole is involved.
Hah, they don’t even fill out logbooks anymore. They’re electronic, No filling out.. and NO fudging or double booking.
The same thing can be done with three driver ID cards as could be done with three logbooks.
A genetic study examined tissue from 357 men and 187 women, doing RNA sequencing on various tissues, and found 6,500 different genes that were expressed differently between men and women. In other words, some genes are expressed in men, and others in women. Beyond the obvious mammary tissue and skeletal muscle, there were a whole host of other differences. The anterior cingulate cortex, which is part of the limbic system and is important in emotional responses, contains over 100 genes that are expressed differently between men and women. Other parts of the brain were different as well, and even organs like the spleen and stomach showed differential expression. Obviously, men and women behave differently. We should not reject the notion; we should rejoice in it and make the most of it. http://lc.org/PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/050917Study_showing_6500_gene_variances_2017_compressed.pdf
The Jury will probably let him off but at least he was arraigned and will face the charges. http://www.wgrz.com/article/news/crime/buffalo-police-officer-arraigned-on-assault-charges/71-496992563
A few thoughts:
1: It’s BRUCE Jenner. He’s not a woman, he’s a dude with a mental illness.
2: Rule 28 – The three favorite phrases of totalitarians are “The law is the law,” “I’m just doing my job” and “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
3: Rule 105 – The State has no right to enforce an unjust law, and I have no obligation to obey one.
4: Rule 109 – The purpose of official policy is to shield decision-makers from personal responsibility for their actions.
And perhaps the most central problem here, Rule 110 – The freedom of the common man is too important to be left in the care and feeding of the common man.
Are you a psychiatrist or are you practicing medicine without a license?
RMD Bill, if you don’t know that a mammal with a dick is a male….perhaps you have lost a few essential brain cells yourself….. A dude who pretends to be a woman is no more a woman than a human who “identifies as a cat” is a cat.
If you think calling a penis a dick is a demonstration of intelligence, your problem is more obvious than mine is.
I would have said “putz” or “prick”, but I didn’t want your ears to burn. 😉
It can be done by any medical examiner familiar with mammalian neurology.
Since there are more working plastic surgeons than geneticists with knowledge of the genetics of gender, having any distinctive feature of either, or both, genders is a matter of ones plastic surgeon than ones geneticist.
Maybe every public terlit should have a little kiosk outside with a geneticist or plastic surgeon in it, so we can have a consultation to determine which terlit we should use…..
There are unisex toilets all over the world which have never experienced a single sexual assault.
Well, if I’m bleeding the lizard, and see some dude walkin’ buy, who’s all done-up like a woman, my syes and senses have been assaulted! And I may well assault “it”…though certainly not sexually.
What would you think if you had ac daughter and saw a dude going into the terlit after her?
Just like with smoking or anything else- the provider of the facility/owner of the property should be the one who makes the decision, just as his customers can make the decision whether or not to patronize that place. It’s when government makes a decree and forces all to conform, that I have a problem, because then, our ability to choose is [yet again] taken away, and another favored minority is given an artificial right at the expesne or our true rights.
If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can
commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get
an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because
police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be
damned…
Police officers are the only group that can murder someone by falsely claiming that “they feared for their
lives”, have 48 to 72 hours to “get their stories straight”, and have a union lawyer and compliant
prosecutor-steered “grand jury” absolve them of responsibility.
Police demand immediate compliance (Israeli-style)–with two or three cops issuing and yelling out conflicting
commands, it is easy to see how a person under police control could lose his life for merely attempting to
follow conflicting directions. I guess “we are all Palestinians, now”…
Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a
gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite
often, illegal and criminal behavior.
In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the
militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the
“us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a
constant “war footing”, its police tactics are very different.
There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio
evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those
police officers who abuse their authority.
Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their
own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop
resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who
are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
They are held to a higher standard because they took an oath, but taking an oath hasn’t prevented millions of military members from committing treason.
I realize that my suggestions will get nowhere, but, one can hope…for changes…
Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job. You can bet that insurance companies would be more diligent in weeding out the “bad apples” than our present system…
3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned from 48 to 72 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
13 “Asset forfeiture” is a form of “legalized robbery under color of law” and must be abolished. We must return to Constitutional principles when it comes to “crimefighting”. The so-called “war on drugs” is actually a “war on the citizenry” and has had an extremely corrosive effect on the Constitutional principles that our country is (supposed to be) founded on.
14. “No-knock” raids must be abolished as they put both police and (especially citizens) in harms way. Even the Nazis “knocked on the door” before gaining entry.
15. SWAT teams must be reigned in on their “dynamic entry techniques”. Utilizing SWAT teams for routine situations is dangerous to both police and citizens. Smashing everything in sight “just because they can”, blaming it on an “adrenaline rush” must end. There is NEVER a reason for destroying property.
16. The “21 foot rule” must be modified or abolished. American police training assumes that ANYONE that gets within 21 feet of a police officer and is deemed a threat, even a non-life-threatening situation is “fair game” for the use of lethal force. Persons with rakes, sticks, knives, or even their fists have been executed, even when non-lethal means would have been more appropriate. Police hide behind the “21 foot rule” in order to justify questionable police shootings. Their “excuse”, when brought before a prosecutor or grand jury is “that is the way they are trained”. THAT has to change. Police have a greater responsibility NOT to use deadly force against those that they could easily subdue by other means.
Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
Placing any trust that institutions designed to rape, rob and murder us will “police themselves” is a an absolute fallacy. We are outside of the “law” now.
It’s worse than being “All Palestinians now,” We are all Jesus Christs being hunted, tried in a pharisee court, rounded up by Romans, to be scourged and crucified. What point is there appealing to the pharisees, the Romans? Do livestock have an appeal process to their abattoirs?
For generations we have been taught the lie that “violence never solved anything” while our own government inflicts routine violence and murder against us. We are raped, robbed and beaten. Our cities are flooded with foreigners who follow “our” government’s example and rape, rob and beat us in the streets. We are raped, robbed and beaten by taxation and regulation in a tiered just-us system to pay for the benevolence of our masters who rape, rob, beat and murder us – still we are told “violence never solved anything.” A bit of ultraviolence inflicted as just reward for outrages committed, is very, very effective.
I recall so many stories of Dumpster Justice and how neighborhoods were crime free, spotless utopias. The choice is coming quite soon, be a victims statistic or become a righteous martyr. Sic Semper
In other words, private police forces. Do I smell a Libertarian in there somewhere?
Many of our fellow Libs/anarchists speak of “private police forces”- but I think in a free world, with no government, where everyone could arm themselves as they please, there wouldn’t be much need for such- and really, we’d still need the family/community/etc. to protect us from the private police (who ultimately would become just as abusive as regular police, because of the nature of people who fancy themselves as “protectors” and “heroes”; and with even less oversight/fear of repercussions for their actions than even now exists- so if we ultimately would need the community/family to protect us from the private police, why not just skip them and just rely on ourselves/family/community to protect us from criminals- which are usually the same people, anyway?)
“private police (who ultimately would become just as abusive as regular police” … Private Police can be fired. Competing Security Companies will keep each other in line. Don’t confuse the concept with orgs like an HOA that can never be fired.
HOA’s can be fired easily. The boards are elected by the owners and apathy is so great that it doesn’t take much to overthrow one people don’t like. They could be disbanded as well but that’s more involved.
The problem with HOAs is that most people like them the way they are or do nothing to change them. The worst an HOA can be is like a job you hate but the alternatives are worse.
Most HOA’s cannot be dissolved. “that the municipality REQUIRED as part of the subdivision approval process. Existance set out in the Developers agreement that was a CONDITION of municipal approval. If so, the association cannot just ignore those prior negotiations and requirments and must continue to comply with the terms of the developers agreement as set out.”
Apathy means that most boards are already operating such that they can be dissolved under state law. However they won’t be.
HOAs, condo boards, etc have bylaws which can be changed usually with a super majority of owners. Take the vote per the law and file the changes with the government. Done. There’s a lesser easier changed form which are the rules and regulations. These are controlled by the board. Again with apathy elections can be won.
An HOA is simply a corporation and can die like any corporation can die.
Most people like how things are and don’t change them.
Exactly, Brent.
Most people who buy into a place with an HOA WANT that HOA to keep any “miscreants” from parking their dually or a boat in the driveway; or from planting the wrong color flower; or from putting a decoration on their front door which does not conform to the tastes or sentiments of the typical Nazi who lives in such places.
I remember on Long Island, (Where they already have among the most oppressive town codes in the world) there was some flack because some townhome HOAs (and residents!) were balking because some Jew residents were putting menorahs in their windows.
I can’t even imagine the mentality of someone who would pay TOP dollar to live in a place which has among the highest property taxes in the world, AND the most opressive local governments…but on top of that, they buy into a place with an HOA!!!!! And it’s funny: What do they get for all the layers of government and all of the expense? Are the streets paved with gold? Are they living in wonderful idyllic places? LOL…. No! They live in shitty crime-ridden conformist camps, where their lives are obsessed with petty BS.
HOAs are a direct result of the abolition of real estate “restrictive covenants” in the late 1940s. These “restrictive covenants” were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as they were used to keep neighborhoods “racially pure”. These restrictive covenants stipulated what race of buyer you could sell your house to…as a result, HOAs came into being…
The part about restricting who you can sell to may have ruled “unconstitutional” (I guess the morons who consider themselves the “interpreters” of the Constitution mistakenly think that that document limits us, rather than government…) -but restrictive covenants are still very much alive and well- as far as limiting what type or size of dwelling you can put on a piece of property, etc.
The difference between restrictive covenants and HOAs is restrictive covenants pretty much only apply to the actual land, and what you can put on or do with it- whereas HOAs deal with all the petty day-to-day stuff, like appearance and upkeep and maitenance…and they can change the rules, or add new ones, or suspend old ones…whereas with a restrictive covenant you can’t.
My neihbor just sold 100 acres, and did so with a restrictive covenant stipulating no mobile homes, and no subdividing into a bunch of small parcels- to prevent what happened a mile down the road in back of that acreage, where the locally despised RE guy bought some acreage and subdivided it into little 2 and 3 acre tracts…and now there’s a freaking slum back there of dirtbags living in ancient mobile homes and storage sheds. While I’m glad that people still have the freedom to live that way here; and I live in a mobile home myself, on my acreage- it is not something you want to see done on a large scale and concentrated in one area. And my neighbor sure didn’t want itv happening nextdoor to his house and 20-something acres.
HOAs are essentially a microcosm of “democracy”- The majority uses them to protect their own interest at the expense of the rights of individuals.
The only good thing is: No one can force you to buy into a place where there is an HOA- so they tend to be made up entirely of gas-bags and the ignorant (who are too stupid to know that they will be oppressed if they try to do anything contrary to the wishes of the starchy majority).
I find it really hypocritical that Rand Paul, who claims to be somewhat of a Libertarian, would care so little about his own autonomy, that he would buy into one. Claqim to be a Libertarian; live like a communist…by choice?!
Rand Paul is the republican that his father refused to be.
Apparently, Bill. Like all politicians, they say nice things which will appeal to their targeted demographic…but ultimately, they’re just more cogs in the machinery of the system.
HOAs, condos, and so forth vary widely. It all depends on who runs them and how they operate. You get a self managed association where the people on the board do the work it will have a good chance to be quite livable. Busybodies are discouraged because there is work involved. With a management company where they get to be busy bodies most of the time… look out.
Adhesion contracts are more alike than they are different and best avoided like the plague they all are.
“Private police can be fired”.
That just means that you no longer pay for/retain their services. It doesn’t make them go away, nor stop their abuse. The fact is, we as a society/community would still have to be sufficiently armed, in order to repel any abusive private police (Even if they’re not working in our employ, we might well still be their victims)- so again, since it is necessary to maintain the balance of power….what would we need to use a middleman for?
A well-regulated militia is all we have ever needed, but that takes the individual commitments of all of the members thereof.
Exactly, Bill. And if the average citizen is not willing to bear that essential responsibility of freedom, then there can really be no freedom- because the other alternatives are really just a matter of delegating our rights and responsibilities to others…and we’ve seen how that works….
Delegation is not permitted by the Constitution.
But most people want to do it anyway, ’cause inconvenience is too high a price to pay for freedom these days….
Convenience has nothing to do with lawfulness.
Sir,
Some good ideas. I may become a police officer soon and have copied your ideas down. Thanks.
As to point 14; when I was in Germany, I wanted to know what my rights were regarding the police entering my house. So I got with one of the on-base lawyers and asked. She gave me a link to a document. In Germany, raids after dark are strictly forbidden unless the police can prove “like crazy” that if they don’t go in, something really bad is going to happen, or going the next moring will be too late. In other words, the police (ie: SWAT) were likely to show up during daylight hours.
VERY well written
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
The correct answer is everyone. When they’ve left the reservation, usurped privileges not granted them, and placed themselves beyond the protection of the old and good law by their actions, all other considerations become tactical.
One of my personal actions has been to join and support CSPOA. And hell no I’m not a cop.
Maybe you should join their associates in Oath Keepers as well. Then there are JPFO and FIJA to consider, as well.