Concord Police Department sucks. I live there and outside of a handful of cops most of them suck and deserve no respect until its earned!! Cops forget that we the people are paying their salary and its obvious Concord PD needs to see some major budget cuts to get some of these bad pigs off the streets.
The last 3 presidents have been "doing away " with our Bill of Rights? We aren't suppose to expect government to go by the rules anymore. If you object to this expect to be tazed and possibly killed. Others will not come together and help you because they are beating you and not them. The major media will convince voters that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. Prepare to go farther into socialism. How much more do the rich want from you? They want "more". How much more? ..they want.more...
I thought I was a Republican, then I discovered I was conservative. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the Tea Party. I discovered I was a Libertarian.
The courts have repeatedly thrown out zoning ordinances that violate Constitutional rights. The problem is that you have to go to court each time to fight for your rights, and the authorities never stop just because the judge told them that people have rights.
When Tactikalguy1 sues, nobody fucking laughs. When the people he has helped sue, nobody laughs. I've spoken with Tactikalguy1. He he offered to help Dave Ridley, and DR turned him down. Why? Because, as DR admits, he scoffs at attempts to actually use the constitution as it was intended to be used, as a defense against government.
The reason FreeSters are losing their interest is because
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS FAILING
Either search "Pastor Sanderson." "Search Tactikalguy1" or go back to watching American Idol. People are sick of watching you people martyr yourselves. It ain't heroic to sit in a cage, you morons.
Why ask permission? Just show up and start protesting. Your existing permit (peaceable assembly; free speech; petition government) is recognized..not granted...by the Constitution.
Most great evils in history were perpetrated by people "just doing their job". That's no excuse for immoral behavior - and demanding permits of people peacefully assembling in a public place is immoral.
@ninjabunnyman Not necessarily. Your opinion is your own and that's fine. Either way, town or city ordinances are entirely enforceable. If the people of Concord collectively have an issue with a particular ordinance, the issue must be handled through the appropriate legislative process. Apparently most people do not have an issue with the current ordinance since it remains on the books with little resistance from the majority of Concord residents.
The law is not "just the opinion of politicians". The law is comprised of legislation enacted by reps who were put in to their position by a vote from their constituents. When most people dislike decisions a particular rep makes, that rep is generally replaced in the next election. Likewise, when a law is deemed unjust, it may be amended or repealed. This must be done through the appropriate legislative process. To simply disregard the law based off one's individual opinion is improper.
But that's exactly what it is. They vote, and their opinion is deemed "law".
Is it your suggestion that the opinion of politicians or majorities makes immoral things moral, or moral things immoral? Is your suggestion that a person should do what they know to be morally wrong simply because it's legal, or popular?
You act as if you have some sort of religious faith that this process literally determines morality itself. No -- it's been used to endorse all kinds of horrible evil.
Individuals must make decisions based off what they know to be proper or improper in accordance with their own morality. So long as an individuals actions are not illegal or harmful to others, they are free to do as they please.
Based off your comments, it seems your view of our system of law is that it's unjustified. My view is that while our system is imperfect and constantly evolving by virtue of it's structure and design, as Americans, we're fortunate to have the best system in the world.
I'm glad you recognize that people must act in accordance with their own conscience.
Your second sentence goes very wrong, however. I agree with your condition that acts must not be harmful to others, to be moral -- but your legality condition is unwarranted. It was once illegal for blacks to sit at the front of busses. Was that immoral? It was once against federal law to assist escaping slaves. Was that immoral?
The fact that certain other abusers are worse, is no excuse.
The laws you've cited were both draconian and entirely unjustified. Thus, both were repealed through the appropriate legislative process.
Without voluntary compliance of the citizenry to a justified system of law, society quickly slips into a state of chaos and civil unrest. There must be a balance between the level of intrusion permitted by the people, and the security maintained as a result. The 4th amendment exists specifically for that reason.
Repealed after many decades, which is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that people that lived at the time these laws were still on the books should have obeyed them?
I'm simply advocating that rules against harming other persons, and respecting property rights, be consistently applied. The idea that these standards for basic decency somehow don't apply to politicians does not increase order -- rather it undermines order in society, and creates numerous systematic evils.
@ninjabunnyman It is my view that everyone in society must be required to abide by the law, and the penalty for refusing to do so must be applied equally regardless of social status or political position or affiliation. I for one, am held to a higher standard because of my position as a public figure. We're constantly under the microscope of the public eye, and that's to be expected. I do not take issue with this fact because this is also part of the structure of our system. Checks and balances.
You didn't answer my question. Are you suggesting that people who lived at the time these laws were still on the books should have obeyed them?
Rosa Parks? Harriet Tubman? MLK (who we now have a holiday for) -- they all broke this vaunted "law". I laud their actions -- they obeyed and defended basic moral standards, rather than the whims of men.
The public consensus was that those laws were unjust, therefore they were repealed. Good legislation was also enacted as a result of the civil rights movement. This is the beauty of our system...it is fluid by virtue of it's structure.
Do you agree that a system by which citizens must abide is a necessity in order to maintain the peace and dignity of society?
Unfortunately, the fact is many people would not and do not behave without an incentive such as a penalty for failing to do so.
I'm glad that these laws were eventually repealed -- but these men and women broke these immoral laws while they were still on the books. At the time they broke them, they couldn't have known when or if they would be repealed -- yet they obeyed their consciences rather than the opinions of men.
This is true in the legal sense. However, they were successful in doing so for a number of reasons. The laws pertaining to blacks at the time were draconian and many people recognized this. The civil rights movement was multi faceted in that civil rights and individual liberty goes to the core of humanity. In the end, the laws were repealed and removed from the books through the appropriate legislative process. Nothing is perfect, however, our system is still the best.
Would you say you endorse their violations of immoral laws, or not?
I think rather than placing your faith in a "system", you would do better to place your faith in certain fundamental principles. Any system can (and has) been perverted. It is the adherence of a society to certain principles -- not its adherence to a certain process -- by which it may rightly be judged.
The philosophical possibilities are endless. In reality, there must be a system which includes clearly defined boundaries by which people must abide, and the penalties for failing to do so. There is no simple solution because every circumstance is different. This is why our system allows the totality of the circumstances to be taken into consideration. There is no supreme dictator sitting on a throne. Checks and balances govern our system in accordance with the constitution and the people.
Sure, here are the clearly defined boundaries: Don't harm others, and don't violate their property rights.
Just about all of us recognize these behaviors as immoral in our private, individual interactions -- yet we imagine that if we use government to these ends, that the behavior somehow becomes moral.
This is the standard by which I judge men's behavior -- not by adherence to popular opinion.
@ninjabunnyman OK, those are things that any liberty minded human being would agree with. I'm more interested in some specific examples of this and at the hands of whom? I'm asking very specific questions for a specific reason. I will explain why based off your response.
Yes, I agree with the enforcement of rules in society -- and the use of penalties. But, these rules need to be consistent with basic morality -- don't harm others, don't violate their property, etc, rather than popular preference. I object to the notion that these standards of decency don't apply to the actions of politicians or majorities.
Much evil has come of blind obedience to men - no evil has ever come from adherence to these basic moral principles.
I agree. This is why the fore fathers designed our system the way they did...to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. We don't deal with the sort of thing people under communist dictatorships do because our system does not allow it. Of course there are those who claim we are experiencing this sort of thing today in America. We aren't. Those folks are alot of drama with no substance to back their claims. Their disagreement with the system certainly doesn't render their views credible.
Yet this current government routinely violates these basic standards of decency. Much of what government does would land any other person or group of people in jail, were they to behave that way.
They routinely violate property rights, routinely harm innocent people, etc. Yet, we are supposed to imagine that it's all ok, because it is done by men who won popularity contests.
It's absurd and immoral, if you actually stop and consider the situation honestly
@ninjabunnyman Sure, government does over step their boundaries at times. Thankfully, our system makes it possible for the people to put it right back where it belongs when the citizens feel as though something is unjust and/or needs to change. GIve some examples if you would. Let's stick to reality please.
Sure. What would happen if I tried to enforce a monopoly on liquor, for myself, in my region? I believe the last guy to try that was named Al Capone, and he went to Alcatraz. Yet, politicians do this with impunity.
How about if I decide nobody may do business with their neighbor, without first requesting permission from me, and sending me cash? Another mafiaesque behavior by politicians.
Does majority support render these otherwise immoral acts moral? No, I don't think it does.
People often believe that these kinds of violations of their neighbor's personal rights, or property rights, are necessary in order for society to function effectively. I think that if one really examines the issues, one usually finds that the opposite is the case -- that there are absolutely viable, usually far more effective solutions, and that the current policies are causing at least as much harm as good.
I haven't the slightest idea what you're referring to at this point bud. At any rate, if the folks in the video wish to protest, that is their right to do so. However, the people of the city of Concord have decided they must obtain a permit prior to doing so. This is for many reasons. If they wished to address the issue before the council, they certainly had the right to do so at the next council meeting. The ordinance is not a violation of anyone's 1st amendment rights.
@ninjabunnyman Which piece of legislation are you citing to corroborate your statement about the state violating their property rights? The residents of Concord collectively pay taxes to fund many things, including but not limted to the park. However, they also collectively decided that people must obtain a permit prior to conducting certain activities there. The council is the elected voice of the people, this is why their vote is valid. This is also why the police officers authority is valid.
"Collectively" -- meaning that the majority violate the property rights of the minority. They forcibly take their money, spend it on what they want to spend it on, then exclude that same minority from using it without their permission.
This would be considered a crime in any other context.
Yes, it would be a crime if it were true. Fortunately it is not. The notion that the majority 'forcibly' takes people's money and recklessly spends it on whatever they want is untrue. Public monetary funds are meticulously monitored. Also, noone is excluded from using anything to which they contributed. Anyone and everyone is required to obtain a permit prior to hosting any organized event at the public park. The permit notifies authorities of the event and keeps others from interfering with it.
Well, recklessness is a matter of opinion, but they certainly forcibly take other people's money and spend it on what they want, and they certainly place their own restrictions on the use of the property they acquire and maintain with those funds.
What would happen to me and one of my neighbors, if we decided to get together and treat another of our neighbors this way? We'd go to jail.
@ninjabunnyman Do you attend budgetary meetings in your municipality? Those meetings specifically address which funds are going where. There is no room for anyone to spend anything without approval. We're talking about state and local here, not federal. Federal is a different creature altogether.
Your perception of what is happening and what is actually happening are two entirely different things. If you truly want to understand how and why things are done they way they are, get involved.
Without approval from a majority of the politicians, that is.
They take money from minorities, against their will, on a routine basis. I know, because I'm a member of the minority. If I don't send them cash, they will ultimately send armed men to my home.
I share your preference for local government over federal ... they're far more accountable, and far less abusive. But much of what they do is still wrong.
We need to start working to apply moral standards consistently.
@ninjabunnyman I'm a member of the minority as well. Incase you haven't checked out my page, i'm a Native American. Every American, regardless of race or ethnicity is entitled to the same liberty and freedom. Taxes are required to fund infrastructure. Sure, it sucks to pay taxes when you're already broke...but without that revenue, we'd all be worse off. The real problem is when tax revenue is misallocated (which is a crime). All in all, we are blessed with a good system. Take care bud.
I wasn't referring to racial minorities, I was referring to political minorities -- although in some cases they are the same thing.
Our current system is based on the notion that the majority owns the life and property of members of the minority, and may dispose of them as they choose.
Infrastructure can and should be funded in better ways. I think we'd be far, far better off if we stopped imagining that theft or other abuse becomes moral when it's perpetrated by a majority.
You seem like a really honest, sincere guy. Just remember that most forms of evil through history, involving violations of persons or property, were considered necessary at the time.
The current system lands people who've harmed nobody and nothing in jail for decades. It forces people like me, who consider the wars (for example), to be outrageous and immoral, to fund them anyway. If I don't fund them, I get locked up.
This is not moral -- as I'm confident later generations will recognize.
The question is this -- are we going to advocate that people blindly adhere to the whims of men who win popularity contests, or are we going to advocate that people adhere to certain consistent, fundamental principles for right behavior?
Citizens are not required to 'blindly adhere to the whims' of anyone so long as they are not breaking the law.
Elected reps generally recognize their success is contingent upon successfully representing their constituents. This is especially true on the state and local levels of gov. Therefore, any piece of legislation presented must be justified in the eyes of their constituents given the totality of the circumstances or it will not receive the necessary votes required to be enacted.
@ninjabunnyman Would you then have no system of law? How well do you suspect things would work if everyone were permitted to simply do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted without penalty for violating someone elses rights? Under such a system, individuals would have no rights to begin with.
How much of an education do you have with regard to constitutional law? By asking how much of an 'education' do you have, i'm referring to formal education, not reading from the internet.
See my other reply -- I apologize, I couldn't fit the whole response in one post.
I do advocate penalties -- especially restitution -- in cases where persons violate the rights of others. It is the popular notion that basic moral standards do not apply to the actions of majorities or politicians to which I object. It is no more moral for the many to abuse the few, than for one man to abuse his neighbor.
My reason for inquiring about your level of formal education with regard to this subject is so I may ascertain whether i'm speaking with someone who has a clear understanding of our system and how it operates. If you have that understanding and have made a conscious decision to disregard it, there would be no reason for discussing things further since you've already made up your mind.
Otherwise, it may just be that your perception of something you don't understand has influenced your opinion.
Let's see why were you thwarted by the District Attorney? Oh yeah you have no idea what the prosecution rules are, do you?
THE CHARGING DECISION
If the statute is antiquated, has not been enforced in many years, most citizens act as though the proscribed activity was legal, the statute serves no deterrent purpose, and the legislature has not recently addressed the statute,115 then prosecution may not be warranted.
George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles. Page 48-49.
"Tea Party" is a Big Lie. It's not the simple 1700s. We now have millions of life-saving water-food-air-safety, police, military, etc. provided by "big government" (We The People). During the real Tea Party there were no freeways, bridges nor school that allow real tax-paying patriots to work & contribute to the superior progress this nation has. I've never whined about paying taxes as without regulations many of us wouldn't be here. Due to Cheney's deregulations the Gulf is an oil pool."
@LegalizeTx420 Concern over 1.2 BILLION a day in interest on our debt. TRILLIONS in UNFUNDED obligations to SSI/Medicaire with creation of more gov programs doesn't deserve criticism? Creation of $1,700 annual tax for cap & trade on american families in this economy seem sane to you? Continued occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan protecting foreign populations with our military as police seem sane to you? A president who openly lies when clarifying facts doesn't seem wrong to you?
@joe035 Nice talking points. -_- IDW get caught up in your game of made up phrases and BS facts... All I know about the "tea partiers" is they are ALL fat, white, pseudo-wealthy, diabetic, SUV driving, illogical, wasters of all things, and maker-uppers of meaningless profound sounding phrases (lol), be it metaphorically or literally... that's all i need to know.
protesting is pointless they dont care because you still allow them to take your money out of your pay . cancel the w4 learn the truth at losthorizons
@LegalizeTx420 He is continuing Bush policies. Continued bailouts, continued defict spending, continued occupation of Iraq/ Afghanistan, continued extension of Patriot Act. Worse he is treating terrrorists as civilians, FDR had the sense to try foreign NAZI insurgents as terrorists in a military court & had them executed! He is making the mess bigger, no regulation for Fannie or Freddie two biggest contributors to our collapse 7 he is cleaning it up how?
WOW!! Are we really free? Or is our freedom just an illusion caused by the goverment brainwashing us when we were children?Can someone tell me what rights do we have that isnt regulated or cancelled out by other laws set by congress.This is not a democratic country and it sure isnt a representative democracy either because our congressman just wiped their asses with our voices when they passed this bill.Its time for a revolution people.Organize! Obama just cut down the tree of liberty!
Well, freedom to peaceably assemble is a guaranteed right, however, many places require a permit to demonstrate- which makes sense to a large degree. However, saying a specific group can't protest within an entire public area (like Concord) IS unconstitutional - in several ways...the right to peaceably assemble and equal protection under the law...to name a few.
Look at the big tough guy approaching a group of people protesting, supposedly covered by the constitution. We aren't free anymore people, the sooner you realize that the sooner you'll start going out to the mass demonstrations. It's harder to stop a large group. Do something before it's too late!
every street in America is my free speech zone, it says so right there in the constitution. i don't remember reading anything about permits in there...
Since when has that rag mattered to our Benevolent Leaders? Their word is Truth and nothing else matters. We are all but objects of the State's action here by the grace of our Wonderful Government.
Here in Harford County, MD we had a problem w/ the county government not letting us protest without purchasing insurance for the location we wanted. A constitutional lawyer jumped in and threatened to sue the county government. The county looked in to it and realized they would lose, so now we have free reign and don't need permits.
If a cop asks for a permit you should pull out a pocket constitution and read them the first amendment.
That only aplys to non US citizens that constitution of the united States of America. the 14th amendment shows 2 distinct citizenship's. one before a sovereign or freeman of the land citizenship. Us citizens have no rights reserved since their franchise property. because you have 2 names the name say CARL RHODES isn't the same as Carl Rhodes. The first one is a legal fiction. and can never be guilty of protesting since that name is a dead man. Its a trust account set up for you to pay banks.
As for Judd Gregg, he's on his way out so there is no point in protesting him. There are over 300 cosponsors for the end the Fed bill and he has been spanked and knows that we disapproved of his position on that.
By the way, 60 people showed up and were indeed on the sidewalks in Concord. We have never had a permit to demonstrate there and the cops just drive by and don't bother us. We did this and Hodes walked right through our crowd, would not answer questions. The reason they tried to block it this time was, Hodes actually called DC police.. The other two PDs laughed at the idea that these folks were 'dangerous'.
You would have heard of it if you were on the list with 4,000 other tea party activists and actually got out there to help! Where are the 800 FSPers???
per order and it sticks. I urge you to look up in youtube the 2 free videos about 1hr 20 minutes each about the whole story of being sovereign VS a US citizen. and what distinctions that draw the line in the sand. the nice guy that was arrested for tax fraud for 47 years didnt have to go to jail if he knew what I know. the video is called ARE YOU SOVEREIGN YET. A must see for the one who hold liberty higher that those who hope to hold her head under water.
He had paper work that stated are you a US citizen That is how most americans get hoodwinked into maritime jurisdiction. The citizenship previously held before the dirty trick of FDR and the 14th amendment was sovereign state citizenship. Held by any person residing in the state that he so choose. Do you know the power that most Americans posses but due to ignorance of the law? Well how about writing a bill to a cop every time he states that is an order.... Some sovererign citizens charge $200
I am posting this not to insult anyone but once you learn that you have the option to Leave Maritime jurisdiction and return to civilian jurisdiction. The 14th amendment is the key in silence undetected. It proves there are 2 citizenships in America. one pre 14th amendment and the one after. the 14th amendment was in fact set up for the newly freed black slaves. who were to have more freedom but be under maritime jurisdiction(or commercial code.) When FDR set us the ss act and the "new deal"
to do with civil law. the only time civil law is to be broken is under 3 points. Destruction of property, use of violence or murder, last is fraud in business of personal IE theft and such. What you guys are being arrested for is not right. But you guys are going at it all wrong. My guess is that most of the activists are US citizens with a contract in WASHINGTON DC. What I mean is a birth certificate drivers license ectect. To the authorities you are then know as a child of the state. .
Excuse me Mr. Ridley but you need to cover the individual sovereignty issue. This would resolve all issues with the federal government. This is done through expatriation and leaving the contract (your fictional "PERSON" AKA birth certificate) and SS# and become a sovereign citizen of the state you live in. That way those pot smokers that protest @420 need not do that where would it say in the bill of rights constitution. After I have learned why cops operate through maritime law it has nothing
If you need a permit to protest, then the authorities in NH, like those in Iran can choose the kind of protest the public are allowed to see. Is that democracy? Is that a republic?
If the US & NH constitutions have articles protecting the right to protest, then organisers of protests in NH should have a sheet of paper, A5 would probably be big enough, quoting the relevant articles.
When a slave-state-mentality cop turns up looking for a permit, say yes, & show him your permit. The constitution!
Hey that is fine if he's just chilling with friends and he's making a funny. But if he was saying it rudely ie around women, children, or just plainly at the wrong time.. Then he deserves a beating. Right or wrong that is just how I was raised. To have respect. No I don't respect his right to inappropriate free speech.
@p00lman, i don't think that's their message. i think the message is there's too much restriction from our government that is supposed to be for the people.
Heres some solutions that freestaters and informed people alike are aware of. Spreading the information needed to expose the tyranny behind unconstitutional laws, and also when authorities deliberately break the laws already in place. More informed people=better informed elected candidates and then SLOOOWly but surely(the slow pace also needs to be changed), changes will come.
I've never understood why people so concerned with "freedom" wouldn't be making an effort to improve the freedom of people in countries in which civil rights are lacking.
Free staters don't actually care about freedom. They just care about their selfish desire to do what they want.
You have made it a mission to NOT understand why others are doing what they are doing. People will make futile attempts one after the other to explain - and you will fight them, mock them, do whatever you can just so you are remain ignorant of their position
Its your mission to fight them.. to persist in ignorance. I presume you see it as rightful thing to do.. and so far you are successful. Good luck.
Am I supposed to feel angst that you called my perspective "weak"? Could be.. I did not expected anything else from you. Like I said, you are on a mission. Keep trying.. it will serve you well.
This is a common perspective of a lazy person who doesnt bother to research the different factions, views perspectives, ideologies and what not that are associated with any group/groups of people. Trying to pin them down in one easily explainable byte of understanding is impossible. You yourself just made a crazy generalization by saying "none of them"..do you know every single "ree stater"? Sounds like good old fashioned ignorance to me.
I know every single "free stater" has generalized themselves into the "free stater" catagry by associating themselves with the group. Is group even the right word?
Hey look at me I'm a non conformist. I don't watch American idol so that makes me smarter than everyone that does. I'm such a rebel that I do the opposite of everything. Since I'm not creative enough to come up with any better way of doing things I just do the complete opposite. At least I get attention from other non conformists.
Apparently someone right across the street from my home in Ballwin has one of those "don't tread on me" flags in his yard. Of course, the chances are probably 90% that he's nothing more than a Bushbot and not a libertarian or freedom advocate.
Zoning... what a joke. It's based off an irrational fear of certain businesses and outfits setting up shop in "undesirable" areas, even though I think Houston has hardly any zoning, and that has not happened. What kind of moron businessman is gonna even think of setting up a polluting manufacturing plant right by a residential area? Or a school zone? Come on!
I had to change middle schools for 8th grade thanks to zoning. Obviously I'm over it now, but at the time I was pretty pissed.
Why the hell does ANYONE need a permit to protest on public property?? Isn't that unconstitutional?? Damn authorities... Having to get a permit from the gov't you're protesting. Yeah... Makes a whole lot of sense.
What part of "freedom of assembly" in the First Amendment don't these idiots understand??
Our Tea Party has also been harassed by police. They want their permit fees and also use it as a way to control and deny the right to free speech. It is a violation of the Constitution. Our Tea Party is based on Constitutional principles. Long live the Republic.
why is it the cops dont bother me with my bullhorn,my live free or die gadsen flag and my abolish slavery end the fed sign when i protest every week on a different street corner in my county sometimes by my self
The Freedom to Assemble..? how about We The People start interpreting the Constitution because our Rulers have overstepped their bounds and couldn't inperpret their way out of a paper bag.. it's pathetic really..
@CredoVeritas also note that it is called the ten ammendments and not the bill of rights. The bill of rights were rights given by the king years before to englishmen
@utubehayter What are you talking about?? Please explain to me because i do not know how my comment justifies yours. I was not teaching history class, merely making a fact. Cops dont bother me, not sure because they dont care, they cannot or if they are scared. What do you mean my history is garbled up?
Bill of rights = first 10 amendments that the anti-federalists pushed through.
Hope that clears up.
Try refusing an illegitimate tax, e.g. income tax - pretty sure cops will bother you. To say they don't is like a hamster living in a cage, insisting he is free and he can go anywhere he likes as long as it is inside the cage.
Im telling you they do not bother me. I do not know whether it is because i live in the Valley Forge area or if its because i wear full camo when i protest or if its my signs or maybe they dont like my bullhorn but they never bother me.
Im sure i will run into cops at some point that will bother me but knowing your status makes you empowered over the average individual. They tend to leave Ron Paul-Extreme Libertarians alone around my house.
Though generally accepted, I see the point you make. Limited government is the intention.
Note the Constitution does not "give us" any unalienable rights. We have them. They are ours to lose based on the Common Law of the Land.
However, what we "have" can be sold, exchanged, and modified with our consent.
Bingo, enter the creation of the "U.S. Citizen" via the 14th amendment. TPTB "created" a voluntary federal "modified" servant, with little of the protections detailed by Constitution.
I can't help but just hate cops like the jughead at the beginning. I can just tell that guy is a douche who will never listen to other people and just thinks he already knows it all and has a right to push people around - a self righteous bully. I really think the only remedy for someone like that is an ass beating - serious.
Natural right, just like the right to defend yourself.
The right to assemble is a tricky one, but when they put this kind of restriction in place they have to have a reason for common welfare such as a safety issue.
I would bet that this ordinance was passed behind closed doors or in some secret session where they talked about "area #2453" and never specified what that area was.
They pull that crap all the time especially when the press isn't around.
They do not have the right to infringe on the right to assemble and free speech. This is against the Constitution. A bunch of traitors. Someone needs to give that cop a titty twist. Amazing what a gun and badge, and a few corrupt politicians can do to WE THE PEOPLE. Time to put on more pressure. PATRIOTS UNITE.
Concord Police Department sucks. I live there and outside of a handful of cops most of them suck and deserve no respect until its earned!! Cops forget that we the people are paying their salary and its obvious Concord PD needs to see some major budget cuts to get some of these bad pigs off the streets.
crossingtheswamp1972 1 month ago
Concord sucks. I hate it there. The concord Monitor sucks too.
Whenever I am in concord I feel like I am in mass .
LiveFreeOrDie1985 4 months ago
The last 3 presidents have been "doing away " with our Bill of Rights? We aren't suppose to expect government to go by the rules anymore. If you object to this expect to be tazed and possibly killed. Others will not come together and help you because they are beating you and not them. The major media will convince voters that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. Prepare to go farther into socialism. How much more do the rich want from you? They want "more". How much more? ..they want.more...
mrsparex 5 months ago
I thought I was a Republican, then I discovered I was conservative. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the Tea Party. I discovered I was a Libertarian.
We live and we learn. Keep up the good work!
MrStevenJNelson 6 months ago
thats officer mark hassapee spelled it wrong but w,e hes a school cop during the day
bossman12334 9 months ago in playlist Know Your Rights
tHEY TRIED THIS IN CALIFORNIA TOO!
DeborahsSong 11 months ago
The courts have repeatedly thrown out zoning ordinances that violate Constitutional rights. The problem is that you have to go to court each time to fight for your rights, and the authorities never stop just because the judge told them that people have rights.
bosnuffy 1 year ago
Someone should have asked the cop (pig) "whats going on why are you here today, instead of actually going after real criminals?"
crossingtheswamp1972 1 year ago
When Tactikalguy1 sues, nobody fucking laughs. When the people he has helped sue, nobody laughs. I've spoken with Tactikalguy1. He he offered to help Dave Ridley, and DR turned him down. Why? Because, as DR admits, he scoffs at attempts to actually use the constitution as it was intended to be used, as a defense against government.
JesusDillinger 1 year ago
The reason FreeSters are losing their interest is because
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS FAILING
Either search "Pastor Sanderson." "Search Tactikalguy1" or go back to watching American Idol. People are sick of watching you people martyr yourselves. It ain't heroic to sit in a cage, you morons.
JesusDillinger 1 year ago
watch?v=e_eqtFD6760
watch?v=xTsjz0chxPI
watch?v=yRCgecaUcdc
Every state in the union will be free before NH, you pussies.
watch?v=QfCDJ80G7zU&playnext=1&list=PL2600F35DDDE131DA&index=11
JesusDillinger 1 year ago
Why ask permission? Just show up and start protesting. Your existing permit (peaceable assembly; free speech; petition government) is recognized..not granted...by the Constitution.
ed2276 1 year ago
tea party sucks ass!
Keyo717 1 year ago
Don't blame police officers. They're just doing their job.
When you behave like anarchists, your cause isn't the issue anymore. Your childish behavior becomes the issue and you won't be taken seriously.
Rhiannon003 1 year ago
@Rhiannon003
Most great evils in history were perpetrated by people "just doing their job". That's no excuse for immoral behavior - and demanding permits of people peacefully assembling in a public place is immoral.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman Not necessarily. Your opinion is your own and that's fine. Either way, town or city ordinances are entirely enforceable. If the people of Concord collectively have an issue with a particular ordinance, the issue must be handled through the appropriate legislative process. Apparently most people do not have an issue with the current ordinance since it remains on the books with little resistance from the majority of Concord residents.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Many great evils in history were perpetrated by majorities, as well. Popular opinion is no excuse.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman No, but it is the law.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
So what? "The law" is just the opinion of politicians and/or bureaucrats. It doesn't make wrong things right, or right things wrong.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
The law is not "just the opinion of politicians". The law is comprised of legislation enacted by reps who were put in to their position by a vote from their constituents. When most people dislike decisions a particular rep makes, that rep is generally replaced in the next election. Likewise, when a law is deemed unjust, it may be amended or repealed. This must be done through the appropriate legislative process. To simply disregard the law based off one's individual opinion is improper.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
But that's exactly what it is. They vote, and their opinion is deemed "law".
Is it your suggestion that the opinion of politicians or majorities makes immoral things moral, or moral things immoral? Is your suggestion that a person should do what they know to be morally wrong simply because it's legal, or popular?
You act as if you have some sort of religious faith that this process literally determines morality itself. No -- it's been used to endorse all kinds of horrible evil.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Individuals must make decisions based off what they know to be proper or improper in accordance with their own morality. So long as an individuals actions are not illegal or harmful to others, they are free to do as they please.
Based off your comments, it seems your view of our system of law is that it's unjustified. My view is that while our system is imperfect and constantly evolving by virtue of it's structure and design, as Americans, we're fortunate to have the best system in the world.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
I'm glad you recognize that people must act in accordance with their own conscience.
Your second sentence goes very wrong, however. I agree with your condition that acts must not be harmful to others, to be moral -- but your legality condition is unwarranted. It was once illegal for blacks to sit at the front of busses. Was that immoral? It was once against federal law to assist escaping slaves. Was that immoral?
The fact that certain other abusers are worse, is no excuse.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Which brings me back to my original point.
The laws you've cited were both draconian and entirely unjustified. Thus, both were repealed through the appropriate legislative process.
Without voluntary compliance of the citizenry to a justified system of law, society quickly slips into a state of chaos and civil unrest. There must be a balance between the level of intrusion permitted by the people, and the security maintained as a result. The 4th amendment exists specifically for that reason.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Repealed after many decades, which is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that people that lived at the time these laws were still on the books should have obeyed them?
I'm simply advocating that rules against harming other persons, and respecting property rights, be consistently applied. The idea that these standards for basic decency somehow don't apply to politicians does not increase order -- rather it undermines order in society, and creates numerous systematic evils.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman It is my view that everyone in society must be required to abide by the law, and the penalty for refusing to do so must be applied equally regardless of social status or political position or affiliation. I for one, am held to a higher standard because of my position as a public figure. We're constantly under the microscope of the public eye, and that's to be expected. I do not take issue with this fact because this is also part of the structure of our system. Checks and balances.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
You didn't answer my question. Are you suggesting that people who lived at the time these laws were still on the books should have obeyed them?
Rosa Parks? Harriet Tubman? MLK (who we now have a holiday for) -- they all broke this vaunted "law". I laud their actions -- they obeyed and defended basic moral standards, rather than the whims of men.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
The public consensus was that those laws were unjust, therefore they were repealed. Good legislation was also enacted as a result of the civil rights movement. This is the beauty of our system...it is fluid by virtue of it's structure.
Do you agree that a system by which citizens must abide is a necessity in order to maintain the peace and dignity of society?
Unfortunately, the fact is many people would not and do not behave without an incentive such as a penalty for failing to do so.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
I'm glad that these laws were eventually repealed -- but these men and women broke these immoral laws while they were still on the books. At the time they broke them, they couldn't have known when or if they would be repealed -- yet they obeyed their consciences rather than the opinions of men.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
This is true in the legal sense. However, they were successful in doing so for a number of reasons. The laws pertaining to blacks at the time were draconian and many people recognized this. The civil rights movement was multi faceted in that civil rights and individual liberty goes to the core of humanity. In the end, the laws were repealed and removed from the books through the appropriate legislative process. Nothing is perfect, however, our system is still the best.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Would you say you endorse their violations of immoral laws, or not?
I think rather than placing your faith in a "system", you would do better to place your faith in certain fundamental principles. Any system can (and has) been perverted. It is the adherence of a society to certain principles -- not its adherence to a certain process -- by which it may rightly be judged.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
The philosophical possibilities are endless. In reality, there must be a system which includes clearly defined boundaries by which people must abide, and the penalties for failing to do so. There is no simple solution because every circumstance is different. This is why our system allows the totality of the circumstances to be taken into consideration. There is no supreme dictator sitting on a throne. Checks and balances govern our system in accordance with the constitution and the people.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Sure, here are the clearly defined boundaries: Don't harm others, and don't violate their property rights.
Just about all of us recognize these behaviors as immoral in our private, individual interactions -- yet we imagine that if we use government to these ends, that the behavior somehow becomes moral.
This is the standard by which I judge men's behavior -- not by adherence to popular opinion.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman OK, those are things that any liberty minded human being would agree with. I'm more interested in some specific examples of this and at the hands of whom? I'm asking very specific questions for a specific reason. I will explain why based off your response.
seanredsky 1 year ago
Yes, I agree with the enforcement of rules in society -- and the use of penalties. But, these rules need to be consistent with basic morality -- don't harm others, don't violate their property, etc, rather than popular preference. I object to the notion that these standards of decency don't apply to the actions of politicians or majorities.
Much evil has come of blind obedience to men - no evil has ever come from adherence to these basic moral principles.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
I agree. This is why the fore fathers designed our system the way they did...to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. We don't deal with the sort of thing people under communist dictatorships do because our system does not allow it. Of course there are those who claim we are experiencing this sort of thing today in America. We aren't. Those folks are alot of drama with no substance to back their claims. Their disagreement with the system certainly doesn't render their views credible.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Yet this current government routinely violates these basic standards of decency. Much of what government does would land any other person or group of people in jail, were they to behave that way.
They routinely violate property rights, routinely harm innocent people, etc. Yet, we are supposed to imagine that it's all ok, because it is done by men who won popularity contests.
It's absurd and immoral, if you actually stop and consider the situation honestly
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman Sure, government does over step their boundaries at times. Thankfully, our system makes it possible for the people to put it right back where it belongs when the citizens feel as though something is unjust and/or needs to change. GIve some examples if you would. Let's stick to reality please.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Sure. What would happen if I tried to enforce a monopoly on liquor, for myself, in my region? I believe the last guy to try that was named Al Capone, and he went to Alcatraz. Yet, politicians do this with impunity.
How about if I decide nobody may do business with their neighbor, without first requesting permission from me, and sending me cash? Another mafiaesque behavior by politicians.
Does majority support render these otherwise immoral acts moral? No, I don't think it does.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@seanredsky
People often believe that these kinds of violations of their neighbor's personal rights, or property rights, are necessary in order for society to function effectively. I think that if one really examines the issues, one usually finds that the opposite is the case -- that there are absolutely viable, usually far more effective solutions, and that the current policies are causing at least as much harm as good.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
I haven't the slightest idea what you're referring to at this point bud. At any rate, if the folks in the video wish to protest, that is their right to do so. However, the people of the city of Concord have decided they must obtain a permit prior to doing so. This is for many reasons. If they wished to address the issue before the council, they certainly had the right to do so at the next council meeting. The ordinance is not a violation of anyone's 1st amendment rights.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
@seanredsky
The state enforced liquor monopoly, and business licencing laws, are clearly what I was referring to.
It's a violation of their property rights. They were forced to pay for that park, therefore they have a right to use it.
If the politicians wish to decide who can and can't use the park, they should pay for it with their own money.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman Which piece of legislation are you citing to corroborate your statement about the state violating their property rights? The residents of Concord collectively pay taxes to fund many things, including but not limted to the park. However, they also collectively decided that people must obtain a permit prior to conducting certain activities there. The council is the elected voice of the people, this is why their vote is valid. This is also why the police officers authority is valid.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
"Collectively" -- meaning that the majority violate the property rights of the minority. They forcibly take their money, spend it on what they want to spend it on, then exclude that same minority from using it without their permission.
This would be considered a crime in any other context.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Yes, it would be a crime if it were true. Fortunately it is not. The notion that the majority 'forcibly' takes people's money and recklessly spends it on whatever they want is untrue. Public monetary funds are meticulously monitored. Also, noone is excluded from using anything to which they contributed. Anyone and everyone is required to obtain a permit prior to hosting any organized event at the public park. The permit notifies authorities of the event and keeps others from interfering with it.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Well, recklessness is a matter of opinion, but they certainly forcibly take other people's money and spend it on what they want, and they certainly place their own restrictions on the use of the property they acquire and maintain with those funds.
What would happen to me and one of my neighbors, if we decided to get together and treat another of our neighbors this way? We'd go to jail.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman Do you attend budgetary meetings in your municipality? Those meetings specifically address which funds are going where. There is no room for anyone to spend anything without approval. We're talking about state and local here, not federal. Federal is a different creature altogether.
Your perception of what is happening and what is actually happening are two entirely different things. If you truly want to understand how and why things are done they way they are, get involved.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
Without approval from a majority of the politicians, that is.
They take money from minorities, against their will, on a routine basis. I know, because I'm a member of the minority. If I don't send them cash, they will ultimately send armed men to my home.
I share your preference for local government over federal ... they're far more accountable, and far less abusive. But much of what they do is still wrong.
We need to start working to apply moral standards consistently.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman I'm a member of the minority as well. Incase you haven't checked out my page, i'm a Native American. Every American, regardless of race or ethnicity is entitled to the same liberty and freedom. Taxes are required to fund infrastructure. Sure, it sucks to pay taxes when you're already broke...but without that revenue, we'd all be worse off. The real problem is when tax revenue is misallocated (which is a crime). All in all, we are blessed with a good system. Take care bud.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
I wasn't referring to racial minorities, I was referring to political minorities -- although in some cases they are the same thing.
Our current system is based on the notion that the majority owns the life and property of members of the minority, and may dispose of them as they choose.
Infrastructure can and should be funded in better ways. I think we'd be far, far better off if we stopped imagining that theft or other abuse becomes moral when it's perpetrated by a majority.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Comment removed
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
You seem like a really honest, sincere guy. Just remember that most forms of evil through history, involving violations of persons or property, were considered necessary at the time.
The current system lands people who've harmed nobody and nothing in jail for decades. It forces people like me, who consider the wars (for example), to be outrageous and immoral, to fund them anyway. If I don't fund them, I get locked up.
This is not moral -- as I'm confident later generations will recognize.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
The question is this -- are we going to advocate that people blindly adhere to the whims of men who win popularity contests, or are we going to advocate that people adhere to certain consistent, fundamental principles for right behavior?
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
Citizens are not required to 'blindly adhere to the whims' of anyone so long as they are not breaking the law.
Elected reps generally recognize their success is contingent upon successfully representing their constituents. This is especially true on the state and local levels of gov. Therefore, any piece of legislation presented must be justified in the eyes of their constituents given the totality of the circumstances or it will not receive the necessary votes required to be enacted.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
The law is itself the whim (or preference) of men who win popularity contests.
And this second paragraph of yours just reiterates that the men whose whims are codified as law must first win popularity contests.
That doesn't make their opinions right. It doesn't make immoral actions on their part moral.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman Would you then have no system of law? How well do you suspect things would work if everyone were permitted to simply do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted without penalty for violating someone elses rights? Under such a system, individuals would have no rights to begin with.
How much of an education do you have with regard to constitutional law? By asking how much of an 'education' do you have, i'm referring to formal education, not reading from the internet.
seanredsky 1 year ago
@seanredsky
See my other reply -- I apologize, I couldn't fit the whole response in one post.
I do advocate penalties -- especially restitution -- in cases where persons violate the rights of others. It is the popular notion that basic moral standards do not apply to the actions of majorities or politicians to which I object. It is no more moral for the many to abuse the few, than for one man to abuse his neighbor.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
My reason for inquiring about your level of formal education with regard to this subject is so I may ascertain whether i'm speaking with someone who has a clear understanding of our system and how it operates. If you have that understanding and have made a conscious decision to disregard it, there would be no reason for discussing things further since you've already made up your mind.
Otherwise, it may just be that your perception of something you don't understand has influenced your opinion.
seanredsky 1 year ago
I wouldn't want to live a progressive hellhole nanny state socialist nightmare.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
So NH is a progressive wasteland? I know NH legalized queer unions. Is it really as bad as NY or MA?
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne NH is much more conservative than the vast majority of the United States.
seanredsky 1 year ago
Let's see why were you thwarted by the District Attorney? Oh yeah you have no idea what the prosecution rules are, do you?
THE CHARGING DECISION
If the statute is antiquated, has not been enforced in many years, most citizens act as though the proscribed activity was legal, the statute serves no deterrent purpose, and the legislature has not recently addressed the statute,115 then prosecution may not be warranted.
George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles. Page 48-49.
ArrestAJudgeKit 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
"Tea Party" is a Big Lie. It's not the simple 1700s. We now have millions of life-saving water-food-air-safety, police, military, etc. provided by "big government" (We The People). During the real Tea Party there were no freeways, bridges nor school that allow real tax-paying patriots to work & contribute to the superior progress this nation has. I've never whined about paying taxes as without regulations many of us wouldn't be here. Due to Cheney's deregulations the Gulf is an oil pool."
Peanutof85 1 year ago
Liberals, Proggressives = Tyrants
joe035 1 year ago
@joe035 right wing lunatics*
LegalizeTx420 1 year ago
@LegalizeTx420 Concern over 1.2 BILLION a day in interest on our debt. TRILLIONS in UNFUNDED obligations to SSI/Medicaire with creation of more gov programs doesn't deserve criticism? Creation of $1,700 annual tax for cap & trade on american families in this economy seem sane to you? Continued occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan protecting foreign populations with our military as police seem sane to you? A president who openly lies when clarifying facts doesn't seem wrong to you?
joe035 1 year ago
@joe035 Nice talking points. -_- IDW get caught up in your game of made up phrases and BS facts... All I know about the "tea partiers" is they are ALL fat, white, pseudo-wealthy, diabetic, SUV driving, illogical, wasters of all things, and maker-uppers of meaningless profound sounding phrases (lol), be it metaphorically or literally... that's all i need to know.
LegalizeTx420 1 year ago
This cop is an asshat and I hope I don't bump into him or there will be trouble!
justwannamakeluv 1 year ago
@justwannamakeluv what are you gonna do, cry at him more?
LegalizeTx420 1 year ago
protesting is pointless they dont care because you still allow them to take your money out of your pay . cancel the w4 learn the truth at losthorizons
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 1 year ago
Government cannot stop the people.
God bless the Tea Party movement!
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
@AcePilot2009 the government is chosen by the people... OBAMA FTW!
LegalizeTx420 1 year ago
@LegalizeTx420 The people have made mistakes before but you must have liked Bush, as Obama has continued so many of his policies?
joe035 1 year ago
@joe035 obama is cleaning up a big mess...
LegalizeTx420 1 year ago
@LegalizeTx420 He is continuing Bush policies. Continued bailouts, continued defict spending, continued occupation of Iraq/ Afghanistan, continued extension of Patriot Act. Worse he is treating terrrorists as civilians, FDR had the sense to try foreign NAZI insurgents as terrorists in a military court & had them executed! He is making the mess bigger, no regulation for Fannie or Freddie two biggest contributors to our collapse 7 he is cleaning it up how?
joe035 1 year ago
ok...let the video do the talking...stop talking for the vid...
derocdero 1 year ago
show us your papers! doah!
Ericson578 1 year ago
Subscribed!~!! Thanks for keeping the message out there. People are waking up!
rallycsx 1 year ago
WOW!! Are we really free? Or is our freedom just an illusion caused by the goverment brainwashing us when we were children?Can someone tell me what rights do we have that isnt regulated or cancelled out by other laws set by congress.This is not a democratic country and it sure isnt a representative democracy either because our congressman just wiped their asses with our voices when they passed this bill.Its time for a revolution people.Organize! Obama just cut down the tree of liberty!
castersen13 1 year ago
That cop was a fucking dick head
haroldsmegma1 1 year ago
Well, freedom to peaceably assemble is a guaranteed right, however, many places require a permit to demonstrate- which makes sense to a large degree. However, saying a specific group can't protest within an entire public area (like Concord) IS unconstitutional - in several ways...the right to peaceably assemble and equal protection under the law...to name a few.
Mojave4ever 1 year ago
Look at the big tough guy approaching a group of people protesting, supposedly covered by the constitution. We aren't free anymore people, the sooner you realize that the sooner you'll start going out to the mass demonstrations. It's harder to stop a large group. Do something before it's too late!
mirsaes 1 year ago
every street in America is my free speech zone, it says so right there in the constitution. i don't remember reading anything about permits in there...
CAinfowarrior 2 years ago
Since when has that rag mattered to our Benevolent Leaders? Their word is Truth and nothing else matters. We are all but objects of the State's action here by the grace of our Wonderful Government.
HeadTater 2 years ago
what a tool bag pig
Aonfreak 2 years ago 4
freedom of assembly :) need i say more?
kzxbsa 2 years ago 6
@kzxbsa Still need a permit if required to comply with town ordinance if one is in place.
seanredsky 1 year ago
Here in Harford County, MD we had a problem w/ the county government not letting us protest without purchasing insurance for the location we wanted. A constitutional lawyer jumped in and threatened to sue the county government. The county looked in to it and realized they would lose, so now we have free reign and don't need permits.
If a cop asks for a permit you should pull out a pocket constitution and read them the first amendment.
skitzianist 2 years ago 3
That only aplys to non US citizens that constitution of the united States of America. the 14th amendment shows 2 distinct citizenship's. one before a sovereign or freeman of the land citizenship. Us citizens have no rights reserved since their franchise property. because you have 2 names the name say CARL RHODES isn't the same as Carl Rhodes. The first one is a legal fiction. and can never be guilty of protesting since that name is a dead man. Its a trust account set up for you to pay banks.
deathmarch5 2 years ago
As for Judd Gregg, he's on his way out so there is no point in protesting him. There are over 300 cosponsors for the end the Fed bill and he has been spanked and knows that we disapproved of his position on that.
NHTPC 2 years ago
By the way, 60 people showed up and were indeed on the sidewalks in Concord. We have never had a permit to demonstrate there and the cops just drive by and don't bother us. We did this and Hodes walked right through our crowd, would not answer questions. The reason they tried to block it this time was, Hodes actually called DC police.. The other two PDs laughed at the idea that these folks were 'dangerous'.
NHTPC 2 years ago
You would have heard of it if you were on the list with 4,000 other tea party activists and actually got out there to help! Where are the 800 FSPers???
NHTPC 2 years ago
per order and it sticks. I urge you to look up in youtube the 2 free videos about 1hr 20 minutes each about the whole story of being sovereign VS a US citizen. and what distinctions that draw the line in the sand. the nice guy that was arrested for tax fraud for 47 years didnt have to go to jail if he knew what I know. the video is called ARE YOU SOVEREIGN YET. A must see for the one who hold liberty higher that those who hope to hold her head under water.
deathmarch5 2 years ago
He had paper work that stated are you a US citizen That is how most americans get hoodwinked into maritime jurisdiction. The citizenship previously held before the dirty trick of FDR and the 14th amendment was sovereign state citizenship. Held by any person residing in the state that he so choose. Do you know the power that most Americans posses but due to ignorance of the law? Well how about writing a bill to a cop every time he states that is an order.... Some sovererign citizens charge $200
deathmarch5 2 years ago
I am posting this not to insult anyone but once you learn that you have the option to Leave Maritime jurisdiction and return to civilian jurisdiction. The 14th amendment is the key in silence undetected. It proves there are 2 citizenships in America. one pre 14th amendment and the one after. the 14th amendment was in fact set up for the newly freed black slaves. who were to have more freedom but be under maritime jurisdiction(or commercial code.) When FDR set us the ss act and the "new deal"
deathmarch5 2 years ago
to do with civil law. the only time civil law is to be broken is under 3 points. Destruction of property, use of violence or murder, last is fraud in business of personal IE theft and such. What you guys are being arrested for is not right. But you guys are going at it all wrong. My guess is that most of the activists are US citizens with a contract in WASHINGTON DC. What I mean is a birth certificate drivers license ectect. To the authorities you are then know as a child of the state. .
deathmarch5 2 years ago
Excuse me Mr. Ridley but you need to cover the individual sovereignty issue. This would resolve all issues with the federal government. This is done through expatriation and leaving the contract (your fictional "PERSON" AKA birth certificate) and SS# and become a sovereign citizen of the state you live in. That way those pot smokers that protest @420 need not do that where would it say in the bill of rights constitution. After I have learned why cops operate through maritime law it has nothing
deathmarch5 2 years ago
I meant bill of rights or the uS of A constitution.
deathmarch5 2 years ago
If you need a permit to protest, then the authorities in NH, like those in Iran can choose the kind of protest the public are allowed to see. Is that democracy? Is that a republic?
If the US & NH constitutions have articles protecting the right to protest, then organisers of protests in NH should have a sheet of paper, A5 would probably be big enough, quoting the relevant articles.
When a slave-state-mentality cop turns up looking for a permit, say yes, & show him your permit. The constitution!
christianpatriot125 2 years ago
The NH legislature (both houses) is overwhelmingly democratic. Personally, I prefer a two party system
Cerebus555 2 years ago
Comment removed
mcgrawtim123 2 years ago
If I heard someone walking down the street shouting that profanity, they would get a beating.
nicko978 2 years ago
Comment removed
mcgrawtim123 2 years ago
Hey that is fine if he's just chilling with friends and he's making a funny. But if he was saying it rudely ie around women, children, or just plainly at the wrong time.. Then he deserves a beating. Right or wrong that is just how I was raised. To have respect. No I don't respect his right to inappropriate free speech.
nicko978 2 years ago
Comment removed
mcgrawtim123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Free staters are simply anarchists. They complain about problems, but offer no real solutions.
p00lman 2 years ago
Um, to solutions proposed are freedom, liberty and prosperity.
yojimbo81 2 years ago
No, those are ideals, or perhaps goals, but not solutions.
p00lman 2 years ago
@p00lman, i don't think that's their message. i think the message is there's too much restriction from our government that is supposed to be for the people.
x11115 2 years ago 2
But there are still two problems with their arguments:
1. They make generalizations and don't address actual, specific problems.
2. When they do address specific problems, they don't provide alternative solutions.
p00lman 2 years ago
@p00lman @p00lman
Heres some solutions that freestaters and informed people alike are aware of. Spreading the information needed to expose the tyranny behind unconstitutional laws, and also when authorities deliberately break the laws already in place. More informed people=better informed elected candidates and then SLOOOWly but surely(the slow pace also needs to be changed), changes will come.
AttunedFlux 2 years ago
No, spreading information doesn't solve a problem, it only leads to a problem being addressed by more people.
p00lman 2 years ago
I agree. The free stater agenda is so lenient and generalized that none of them really know what they're trying to accomplish.
nicko978 2 years ago
They're just angry teenagers.
"Eat your dinner!"
"Nah, I don't wanna!"
"Then what are you going to do? Eat nothing?"
"Yeah! I'm gonna eat nothing!"
p00lman 2 years ago
And when their plates are empty who is going to have to feed them?
Just like spoiled teenagers.
These people are just ungrateful. If only they realized how good they have it here in the Unites States.
nicko978 2 years ago
I've never understood why people so concerned with "freedom" wouldn't be making an effort to improve the freedom of people in countries in which civil rights are lacking.
Free staters don't actually care about freedom. They just care about their selfish desire to do what they want.
p00lman 2 years ago
@p00lman,
"I've never understood..."
and you never will. Its your cross to bear. Enjoy!
utubehayter 2 years ago
Do you even know what a "cross to bear" is supposed to mean?
p00lman 2 years ago
Do you?
utubehayter 2 years ago
You have made it a mission to NOT understand why others are doing what they are doing. People will make futile attempts one after the other to explain - and you will fight them, mock them, do whatever you can just so you are remain ignorant of their position
Its your mission to fight them.. to persist in ignorance. I presume you see it as rightful thing to do.. and so far you are successful. Good luck.
utubehayter 2 years ago
1. So I guess you didn't know.
2. Because this weak attempt to try to apply it to what you said makes even less sense. Congratulations.
p00lman 2 years ago
Am I supposed to feel angst that you called my perspective "weak"? Could be.. I did not expected anything else from you. Like I said, you are on a mission. Keep trying.. it will serve you well.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Can you even read?
I said your attempt was weak, not your perspective.
And you clearly don't even know what "angst" is.
p00lman 2 years ago
@nicko978
This is a common perspective of a lazy person who doesnt bother to research the different factions, views perspectives, ideologies and what not that are associated with any group/groups of people. Trying to pin them down in one easily explainable byte of understanding is impossible. You yourself just made a crazy generalization by saying "none of them"..do you know every single "ree stater"? Sounds like good old fashioned ignorance to me.
AttunedFlux 2 years ago
I know every single "free stater" has generalized themselves into the "free stater" catagry by associating themselves with the group. Is group even the right word?
nicko978 2 years ago
"Mob" is a bit better.
p00lman 2 years ago
Hey look at me I'm a non conformist. I don't watch American idol so that makes me smarter than everyone that does. I'm such a rebel that I do the opposite of everything. Since I'm not creative enough to come up with any better way of doing things I just do the complete opposite. At least I get attention from other non conformists.
nicko978 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is it that nonconformists love to express their nonconformity in groups?
p00lman 2 years ago
A right is not a right if you have to get someone's permission. Do you need a permit to attend church? To speak or write your thoughts?
Neither should ANY permit be required for the exercise of any OTHER unalienable right: peacable assembly, keeping and bearing arms, etc.
klaptongroovemaster 2 years ago 2
if youve ever seen "The running man" movie it says "cant win with just words you need guns"
greatestsongsofLIFE 2 years ago
This is why the obozo zombie politicians are getting the boot in 2010
ArcanineTheFurry 2 years ago
Apparently someone right across the street from my home in Ballwin has one of those "don't tread on me" flags in his yard. Of course, the chances are probably 90% that he's nothing more than a Bushbot and not a libertarian or freedom advocate.
whoo689 2 years ago
Zoning... what a joke. It's based off an irrational fear of certain businesses and outfits setting up shop in "undesirable" areas, even though I think Houston has hardly any zoning, and that has not happened. What kind of moron businessman is gonna even think of setting up a polluting manufacturing plant right by a residential area? Or a school zone? Come on!
I had to change middle schools for 8th grade thanks to zoning. Obviously I'm over it now, but at the time I was pretty pissed.
whoo689 2 years ago
In Cinnci, Ohio, an Adult Book store actually tried to open across the street from a Catholic Church!
Zoning stopped it......
sigmundphreud 2 years ago
why shouldnt an adult book store be able to open across from a catholic church?
RidleyReport 2 years ago
@RidleyReport , because the Catholic church is the center of control and is supposed to dominate everything around it.
x11115 2 years ago
Since when has gov. done a great job on protecting morality?
Mossy500A 1 year ago
@RidleyReport yeah why not?
Keyo717 1 year ago
That's almost as bad as the talk about "Free speech zones" in 2004 when people were protesting at the convention sites.
whoo689 2 years ago
Why the hell does ANYONE need a permit to protest on public property?? Isn't that unconstitutional?? Damn authorities... Having to get a permit from the gov't you're protesting. Yeah... Makes a whole lot of sense.
What part of "freedom of assembly" in the First Amendment don't these idiots understand??
whoo689 2 years ago 2
You don't need a permit to protest. It's in our constitution.
EastCoastOp 2 years ago 2
Just look at that monkey punk with a badge.
mascar33 2 years ago 2
Don't cops know they do not have to follow illegal orders? They should join Oath Keepers and support Freedom instead of threatening Americans.
STOP OBAMA - SAVE AMERICA
StopObamadotBiz 2 years ago
Our Tea Party has also been harassed by police. They want their permit fees and also use it as a way to control and deny the right to free speech. It is a violation of the Constitution. Our Tea Party is based on Constitutional principles. Long live the Republic.
AmTeaParty 2 years ago
harassment by cops is helpful for your cause if you get video.
RidleyReport 2 years ago
@RidleyReport
I posted one as a response to this video. But it is not showing up.
AmTeaParty 2 years ago
checking. but i dont usually accept responses unless they are built in response to the vid.
RidleyReport 2 years ago
@RidleyReport I live in northern NH, I'd like to help ypu some time. Let me know how i could get involved. I'm getting a dig cam soon. great job
NationalAdvisory 1 year ago
why is it the cops dont bother me with my bullhorn,my live free or die gadsen flag and my abolish slavery end the fed sign when i protest every week on a different street corner in my county sometimes by my self
mercen144 2 years ago
The Freedom to Assemble..? how about We The People start interpreting the Constitution because our Rulers have overstepped their bounds and couldn't inperpret their way out of a paper bag.. it's pathetic really..
Dewdaahman 2 years ago
Repeat truth.
The "U.S. Citizen" is a volunteer 14th Amendment citizen NOT protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather certain privileges and immunities.
A U.S. Citizen is a corporate person with all the duties and restrictions of the title.
By voting for your bosses (among other things) you maintain YOUR servant status.
Pick one.
1)Independence and Protection of Constitution and Bill of Rights.
2) "U.S. Citizenship", unapportioned taxes, statute law, tyranny, etc
You can't have both.
CredoVeritas 2 years ago
@CredoVeritas also note that it is called the ten ammendments and not the bill of rights. The bill of rights were rights given by the king years before to englishmen
mercen144 2 years ago
@ mercen144,
I think you got your history garbled up.
utubehayter 2 years ago
@utubehayter What are you talking about?? Please explain to me because i do not know how my comment justifies yours. I was not teaching history class, merely making a fact. Cops dont bother me, not sure because they dont care, they cannot or if they are scared. What do you mean my history is garbled up?
mercen144 2 years ago
The anti-federalists were no kings.
Bill of rights = first 10 amendments that the anti-federalists pushed through.
Hope that clears up.
Try refusing an illegitimate tax, e.g. income tax - pretty sure cops will bother you. To say they don't is like a hamster living in a cage, insisting he is free and he can go anywhere he likes as long as it is inside the cage.
utubehayter 2 years ago
Im telling you they do not bother me. I do not know whether it is because i live in the Valley Forge area or if its because i wear full camo when i protest or if its my signs or maybe they dont like my bullhorn but they never bother me.
mercen144 2 years ago
Im sure i will run into cops at some point that will bother me but knowing your status makes you empowered over the average individual. They tend to leave Ron Paul-Extreme Libertarians alone around my house.
mercen144 2 years ago
@utubehayter The first ten articles
of amendment to the constitution
are sometimes refereed to as
"Bill of Rights"
which is incorrect.
They are not a "Bill" but are simply "amendments."
The actual "Bill of Rights" was a declaration in 1689 by King William and Queen Mary to their loyal subjects of the British crown.
If you are in this jurisdiction,
you are a subject of the crown as well?
mercen144 2 years ago
Though generally accepted, I see the point you make. Limited government is the intention.
Note the Constitution does not "give us" any unalienable rights. We have them. They are ours to lose based on the Common Law of the Land.
However, what we "have" can be sold, exchanged, and modified with our consent.
Bingo, enter the creation of the "U.S. Citizen" via the 14th amendment. TPTB "created" a voluntary federal "modified" servant, with little of the protections detailed by Constitution.
CredoVeritas 2 years ago
I can't help but just hate cops like the jughead at the beginning. I can just tell that guy is a douche who will never listen to other people and just thinks he already knows it all and has a right to push people around - a self righteous bully. I really think the only remedy for someone like that is an ass beating - serious.
MoneyIsSilver 2 years ago
Get rid of your local officials!
JSenator06 2 years ago
YEP!
Natural right, just like the right to defend yourself.
The right to assemble is a tricky one, but when they put this kind of restriction in place they have to have a reason for common welfare such as a safety issue.
I would bet that this ordinance was passed behind closed doors or in some secret session where they talked about "area #2453" and never specified what that area was.
They pull that crap all the time especially when the press isn't around.
conspiracy777 2 years ago
yall dont care. yall gonna do it anyway. they cant arrest you all.
803honda 2 years ago
They do not have the right to infringe on the right to assemble and free speech. This is against the Constitution. A bunch of traitors. Someone needs to give that cop a titty twist. Amazing what a gun and badge, and a few corrupt politicians can do to WE THE PEOPLE. Time to put on more pressure. PATRIOTS UNITE.
patriotwarrior2 2 years ago
BTW the porn at the end was Lame!
2xtream 2 years ago