Sovereign citizens seen as topterrorist threat by US lawenforcement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NorseMythology, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. As i have been saying, this government does not defend liberty, instead it views liberty as an enemy. By the way 'sovereign citizen' is a contradiction, citizens are a subjects of the government, government is subject to sovereigns, constitutionally. I just thought you the people should be aware of this.
  2. #3 ChristopherABrown, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
    Very interesting link. I read all the comments. A few were pretty good. And I do see the contradiction in "sovereign citizen'.

    Did you pay attention to the Bundy ranch showdown?

    That kind of seemed like something that could contribute to the view of sovereigns presenting a terrorist threat. It essentially accomplished nothing else.

    Another aspect of that is that none of those supporting the armed response to the ranch would discuss a lawful and peaceful revolution. Which I thought was VERY odd.
  3. I didn't follow that story, but you can be sure if it hit mainstream media they had a purpose. Was it to cover something up, incite fear, or something else? The story may have been worth my inquiry but my time was with other topics. My brother followed it I will see what his take was.
  4. I don't really know one group from another so can't say if that specific one is any risk or not but I can understand looking among some of what I've seen in the news. If that's not the same people they need to disassociate themselves somehow, if it is them they need to stop.
    I don't know how much you all were impacted by it but I grew up shortly after JFK, RFK and MLK died, I was around but too young to remember but I was damned sure impacted by it as I grew up, as was much of my generation. When we had idiots showing up at political protests with weapons a few years back, talk of "second amendment remedies" against politics and policies they didn't like, that said only one damned thing to an awful lot of us. It can happen again, and we might be the ones to do it. "We came unarmed, this time", wasn't a hell of a lot better. WTF is that supposed to imply? Weapons if they don't get their way? Use of them? Threats, or suggestions, even close to that in a nation with a recent history of multiple assassinations is nothing short of a mind numbing level of stupidity.
    Showing up to support Bundy like that was to me astoundingly stupid as well, faced off with the feds, armed, and he repaid the effort by just embarrassing his supporters when it turned out he was just a welfare case after all. His cattle got onto the road and caused an accident, this self sufficient "I don't owe the government a dime" asshole refused to take responsibility for an accident his property caused and said the government was responsible for fencing and protecting that land. But if they are responsible, shouldn't they have those fucking grazing fees to pay for it?
    There's been an awful lot of really, really stupid weapons related crap over the last decade and more. Rule number one if you don't want to end up on a watch list, don't go out of your way to look scary and suggest "remedies". I've got absolutely no fear of weapons and am pretty comfortable with them myself, but the one thing that makes me start to think it's time to consider some gun control is lunatics like the cases above.
  5. The gov't has a bad case of paranoia and it is reacting.
    When the Patriot Act was passed hardly anyone said a word & it was the same when the US military was used against the Branch Davidian's.  When Echelon went online, the gov't decided to expand even that capability.  A new agency was created called Homeland Security & their budget and moves on citizens have been increasing every year.
    Now, Tea Party, NRA, Veterans groups & many other legal groups of citizens are being labled as a threat & being targeted by multiple agencies.  The truth is that those in power don't approve of some people's political views & somehow they justify their actions simply because some don't agree; which is their right...or it used to be.
    It will get worse before it gets better.
    History shows that these kinds of scenarios don't improve until there are piles of innocent victims and blood on the wall.
  6. #7 ChristopherABrown, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
    Here is a compilation of stories about Bundy and other similar events related to militia, sovereign issues.

    I joined oath keepers forum in 2010 only to get banned for trying to get discussion going upon Article V.
    Oath keepers has a curious position. They will not act to uphold the constitution and only refuse to violate certain aspects. A very conditional perspective.

    I do understand that if the government will not follow laws, why should people try to be citizens? Or, when government will not follow laws, people are justified in converting to sovereigns. Seems logical except when there is a law that gives the citizens a right to alter or abolish, and they FAIL to use it because they cannot unify, because free speech is abidged OR citizens do not know the principles widely and well enough, the extent of the law has not been tried.

    Whereupon government might say, "the citizens did not even try to follow law".

    I was a member of the forum when the Bundy spectacle was ongoing and found that no supporters would discuss the proposal that militias back a byline to their action demanding Article V to reign in federal powers by amendment.

    I was banned eventually. I find all of my posts and threads removed. It is pretty clear that those running the site, very likely funded with Koch brothers money, do not want the tea party people there understanding the functionality of a lawful peaceful revolution.

    There were a number of members that voiced support for an Article V convention and appreciated definition of constitutional intent that was simple and completely of the peoples interest. In fact I was banned as I was beginning to prevail in discussion with a retired army colonel who was a very reasonable person.

    I even posted some links here where he was replying to "Chris", but no posts by Chris were in the thread at the forum. I posted those so the infiltrators here could not say, as they were trying to, that I had NOT been banned for trying to support the constitution.
  7. #8 ChristopherABrown, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
    History also shows that Article V had never been used. It does show that as soon as states start moving towards a convention, congress amends as states demand.

    What this establishes is that the congress is afraid of the states conducting Article V on their own without a convention call from congress, which is fully lawful under Article V.

    On my page presenting the principal party I have a link that shows congress refuses to count applications for Article V when it clearly calls got a count by implication when specifying that congress must call a convention when 2/3 of the states apply for one.

    I found a newer development in that quest for accountability by proponents of Article V.
    But you would think a person was courageous or "other good adjective" if they showed up to a Hitler speech and said something like "We came unarmed this time"
  9. Congress is a bunch of cowards with very few exceptions. During the bank fraud of '08 they should have reclaimed their right to issue our currency and started prosecuting the banks. They failed in their duty. If you want to follow and support a decent congressman check out Justin Amash from Michigan

    Thank you for the details on Article V ill look into it as well as the Bundy link. I wouldnt be surprised if some of those supporting Bundy were agent provocateurs.

    And i dont think dramatic change requires bloodshed. If people would just claim their rightful sovereignty, whether you believe God created you sovereign or not, its clear that no one has the right to enslave or otherwise suppress our body and spirit. I dont believe this life is the only form my existence will be apart, but I sure dont believe anyone should be supressing me in this life. When people find out they have nothing to lose and everything to gain is when we become dangerous, even if we remain peaceful (which i prefer). I think these megalomaniacs have scarred souls, they are probably told they are superior to other people and they develope a complex. Just as with pedophiles, they need serious help.
  10. I'm listening to the news whilst I wander on GC & just heard a report that the US Gov't has greatly increased requests for more info from Facebook on its users.
    Gov't run amok like rabid dogs.
  11. #12 SlowMo, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
    The lovers of all things gestapo even encouraged the IRS targeting of conservative groups and then decided that that same asshole agency should supervise Obamacare!
    Of all the heavy handed bureaucratic bullshit agencies that could've been chosen, the party bosses selected those particular thugs to oversee something as critically importance to the people as their healthcare system! :eek:  Should've seen it coming though since a sizable percentage of the so called "Affordable" Healthcare Act happen to be tax code modifications. I'm not convinced that the Democrat strategists were never really interested in "healthcare reform", as in actually becoming more "affordable" without loss of quality.
    The party zombies seem to be about the only people completely unable to ever perceive the use of the term "Reform" for what it almost always turns out to be - namely, just a buzz word the Left uses and abuses to "transform the nation" into that which will inevitably transfer MORE POWER to them  while screwing most everyone else in a zillion hidden ways, yet giving us the appearance that their changes (usually just change for change's sake) is actually something wonderful. The word "Progressive" is very much in the same category. It's smoke and mirrors, people, and little else.
  12. True, but I will not abandon the fundament of understanding human behavior. And there are a number of things that are overbearing in following through with that logic.

    The first is that human beings are largely controlled by their unconscious mind. Second, psychology is incredibly neglectful, or something worse compels them, to not develop treatment to the unconscious mind; the flip side of that is that IF a program like MKultra were used to create radicals, or problems to solve, by renegade government, and we pretty much know they do this in numerous other ways to justify bigger government, more laws and regulation; what's to stop them from using mind control techniques the church has spent 2000 years making us fear; which completes a functional link between church and state in the effort to control populations.

    Third. There was a book called the "Hundredth Monkey" published in 1962, disappeared as in " modern book burning", covered up by another book of the same name in 1974. Since all that is basically true and provable by circumstance right now; THEN, there is an inference that could easily be drawn.

    The church made populations afraid of even discussing uses of the unconscious mind, something basically, naturally hidden, termed "occult"; all but 2 presidents were members of the Masonic order, well know for its "occultisms". Bundy and the state legislator, Harry Reid I think, are both LDS members, heavily associated with Masons.
    Branch Davidians may have been incorporating unconscious control into their sect more openly than is allowed under church control, that along with weapons issues made them a target for removal.

    Accordingly, I've surrounded the sovereign movement and some others with a potential for explaining why what they do appears "stupid".

    I'll conclude this by providing an alternative definition of "stupid".

    Stupid = stupor = trance = unconscious. While I've also provided some explanation for WHY we know nothing about the potentials for unconscious control over people and the unconscious formation of groups.
  13. No, I'd think they were a damned idiot. Showing up simply to swagger around and make threats is a fools move. If you've got one, which we don't, shoot. If we don't skip the hyperbole. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, but she doesn't. If it was Hitler maybe I''d feel different, but it's not.
    Human behavior, in this nation in particular, is why I feel this way. How do we deal with threats or fears in general, as humans? Do we deal with them with tolerance and understanding? Or do we tend to hate and try to get rid of them? For Americans in particular, do you think that urge is more or less? Look at how we dealt with 9-11, with this Ebola hysteria with the drug war, almost everything. This is a nation that attacks what it doesn't understand and destroys what it fears. It always has.
    So what does that say for the idea of 'let's look scary' as an approach? Every group thinks they are different, look through the news archives and see how many thought they were the ones to start the revolution, sure that the public would understand and be with them. How often has that happened?
    The causes, the goals, all the rest of it I can understand at least with the rational ones who worry about surveillance, patriot act, that type of thing, and for the most part agree. But the methods are just stupid when they pick up a gun to make their point. It isn't that time yet, and if it ever is going to be time it's just stupid to telegraph a punch before you're even sure you'll have to throw it.
  14. The government probably knows the full scope of domestic threats and the full potential for an Arab Spring on American soil.
    They most likely have actual reasons to be paranoid.
    Ultimately the question is who does the government see as the biggest threats? Right-wing militias? Socialists? Muslim Extremist? Or just about anyone who threatens the status quo? 
    If it is anyone who threatens the status quo what is the government willing to do to stop them? Infiltration, psychological warfare, sabotage? How often does it happen? What wouldn't happen if they didn't do it?
    As soon as its someone you disagree with your opinions will change
  16. You seem to think you know me better than I do. I'd be fascinated to know how that works. Care to explain the mechanics of it?
    I'm 51 years old, do you really think I've never disagreed with someone before? I'm pretty sure I know how I react when it happens. I was there. You however, I don't remember you being there ;)
  17. #18 ChristopherABrown, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2014
    Using the text that precedes the quoted does not justify the cognitive distortions of "all or nothing thinking" and "over generalizations" of the quoted.
    The definitions of the the controlling aspects of the unconscious mind over human beings that I've provided are close to absolutes of psychological and medical determinations of research. 
    Since the civil war this nation has been infiltrated at the highest levels of government.  That has not "always" been either.  That is what you are describing, not the nation or the people.
    Chris, all or nothing would say never no matter what. Conditional would suggest if/then. When I say if there's a threat, then pick up a weapon, if there's no threat but more a gesture, then it's probably counter-productive, which one of those is that? All or nothing, or conditional?
    I'm not going to get into discussions of "cognitive distortion" and "infiltrated" anything, plenty of others here have been willing to do that with you and you don't need me for that. I'd be glad to talk if you want to just have a discussion though, an exchange of ideas.
    That we have a right to bear arms, even at protests, isn't being questioned. If it's a good idea is being questioned. It's a matter of thinking strategically rather than emotionally, at least to me. What gets you where you want to be with the best effect, and what gets in the way of that. Anything else is putting emotion and personal will ahead of the good of the cause. I don't see weapons at protests as being strategically sound, not if the goal is to educate the public about abuses and get them on your side.
    Let me rephrase: Your conceptualization of the disagreement will change drastically once the issue is something you associate with strong emotional arousal

Share This Page