Here’s a little background on this story. A bill was submitted to the Texas state legislature earlier this year, HB948. Its purpose was to abolish abortion, and instructed the state to ignore any judges at any level that attempted to strike down the law. The bill was blocked from being voted on by Byron Cook who is a legislator. He is Republican and pro-life. He is also a deacon at a Baptist church in Corsicana, Texas.
Since he used his power to block this clearly righteous bill, he should be under church discipline. But his pietistic 501c3 social club isn’t into that sort of thing, so abolitionists protested his church from the public sidewalk.
“This was disrespectful, inconsiderate and inexcusable to be in front of a church on Sunday morning where these little ones were walking in to learn about Jesus and the Bible,” Elmer Tanner, Navarro County Sheriff stated in a social media post. “It was uncalled-for and was as classless an act as I have ever witnessed.”
“Be angry with a law, a situation or a person, but direct your protest at the right place and the right time,” Tanner stated. “Not at a place of worship where children are needing to feel safe, welcomed, eager and excited to be … Nothing beneficial came out of this display today. Nothing.”
Sixty million babies have been murdered in this country. This dirtbag sheriff has done absolutely nothing in his official capacity to stop it. He would almost certainly say stopping abortion isn’t his job, and that his job is just to enforce the law. That is the same excuse the Nazi guards used during their trials at Nuremberg.
Abortionists rest easy at night knowing there are no good cops. Tanner is the proof of that statement.
The funny thing is that HB948 would have required sheriffs like Tanner to stand up to tyrants and baby murderers. Tanner is clearly too big of a sissy to do that. He would fold in front of a fed like a little girl.
Here’s a video where a conservative defends a big-government welfare-based government monopoly, and a liberal puts forth alternative free market solutions.
The liberal talks about Latinx and Trans people and other liberal buzz words, which rubs me the wrong way. The conservative shows such little respect for liberty and justice. No wonder we’re in such a mess.
Here’s my response to the video:
I don’t think this guy has ever thought critically about the police for a single millisecond. It is rare for police to ever stop a crime in progress. So police aren’t for protection. In fact, they aren’t even legally obligated to protect you. Ideally speaking, they are there to find criminals after they’ve committed the crime and bring them to justice. Their other purpose, which never comes up in government PR, is that police are there to collect taxes.
Even in cases like terrorist shootings that he mentions, police rarely protect anyone. At Columbine, police hid outside in fear, even after the shooters killed themselves. The conservative never explains why hundreds of thousands of cops across the country are necessary for a couple of shootings a year. Why can’t citizens with an AR-15 respond to situations like that? They couldn’t do much worse than the cops.
He then talks about a lady being murdered and trying to call 911, and being told there are no police. Again, it’s rare for police to show up to prevent a crime in progress, so the whole thing is just a fantasy. Wouldn’t a better solution be to have an app on your phone that you can alert your neighbors that you need help. And wouldn’t it be nice for the men in the neighborhood to be men and show up to help to show that they love someone enough to potentially lay down their lives for someone else? We don’t have to do that, because we pay the government to do it.
The conservative then raises the question of how we could deal with situations like shoplifting. Maybe the same way the founding fathers dealt with crime before police, when we were still a free people. The police take the information from the store, and then try to locate the suspect. That doesn’t have to be done by police. That can be done privately by investigators, bounty hunters and the courts, which is how early America did it. Read this excellent article on that history.
Then, the liberal says that the job of cops is to manufacture criminals. I think that isn’t the day-to-day mindset of the cop on the street, but I think that is true. With the tough-on-crime mentality of the latter half of the 1900s, politicians made a lot of things illegal that weren’t illegal, and increased prison sentences dramatically. I’ve also heard that there are district attorneys offices whose budgets are wildly too big with a lot of extra staff. What does a prosecuting attorney with nothing to do start looking for? What will happen when we start putting cops in every junior high and high school? You’re going to get more criminals. There have been cases where private prisons bribe judges to send them inmates. This is not far fetched, and the conservative is just not well informed. It’s not exactly surprising that cops aren’t told this, or that this isn’t in the government PR message.
Then the conservative mocks the idea of policing for profit, and says that cops only make $30,000 per year. I suppose there are some places where cops aren’t well paid, but there are also cops who are making great money, and even have pensions worth a couple million. Check out this Forbes story on that.
And the conservative makes fun of the idea that poorly-paid cops are going around trying to put money in other people’s pocket. Well feast your eyes on the video below. Oftentimes they’re trying to put money in their own pocket, as has been verified in local newspapers over the last week or so.
He then goes on to say that cops need to be one step ahead of criminals as far as militarization goes. Criminals have an AR-15 so why go against them with a pistol? The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is that the people are to be as well-armed as the government.
The people are paying the police to protect the citizens, but the police seem much more concerned about their own safety than those they’re paid to protect.
The liberal makes a great point that to end police, their budgets need to be cut. The conservative says that budgets are too small as it is, and for more training, they need more money. That is crazy as far as I’m concerned. When you see 6 or 10 or 15 cops show up to a simple call, it seems like the best thing to do is lay off about 90% of cops. When I’ve had the cops called on me for doing perfectly legal evangelism on a public street, 8 cops showed up. They must have been bored stiff that night.
Starting around 5:15 to 5:53, he then makes a point that I think is important. He says that all shootings are different and have different policies, training, etc. This is something that I’ve been harping on for a long time. Arizona defines murder in a different way than Indiana, which is different from Mississippi. Is it the government’s job to define murder. I have a Christian friend who said officers were justified in one particular incident, and he appealed to state law. Ok, Christian, if you allow the state to define murder, abortion is perfectly legitimate, because the state says so. God defines murder, and every cop who kills someone will stand before God and be judged by His clear and precise law. God will not judge anyone based on Colorado law.
He then mocks the liberal idea of rapid response justice teams saying that cops are that system. But that presupposes that cops bring justice, and the government isn’t stealing to fund their very existence. But he’s clearly someone who hasn’t thought about this stuff very much and seems to worship government power. Here is where he most blatantly shows that he’s a big-government conservative, and cares not a wit about free-market solutions, but in forcing his chosen solution on everyone based on force.
And he thinks the state-sanctioned rapid response justice team is automatically better than the free market rapid response justice team. It’s like he thinks the government people are magical, and this service is only possible through the power of the state. I think a lot of the same people would be involved in the free market security service, except that they could much more easily be held accountable.
So that is it. I’ve debated many people on this, and I never get rational arguments. All they have to offer is emotions.
I told someone that the cops should arrest abortionists for murder, and they said that would be anarchy. Here is my response. Please check out the link, and take the time to read that important article.
If the Nazi guards at the concentration camps had disobeyed orders to kill Jews, would that have been anarchy? Six million murdered Jews is anarchy. Sixty million dead American babies dwarfs Hitler’s anarchy. The Bible only ever refers to man’s laws as lawlessness, i.e. anarchy. Check out this article.
All unlawful orders must be disobeyed. Abortionists rest easy at night knowing there are no good cops.
He did to the guy exactly what he’s accusing the guy of. That is the kind of absurdity and hypocrisy that rejecting Christ leads to. Bernie’s brand of socialism is wicked because it is based on government theft, and appeals to the covetousness of the people.
I try not to spend too much time on federal politics, but I will take a moment to expose stupidity at any level.
Civil asset forfeiture is plain old wicked. It is blatant, out-and-out stealing. Some Colorado lawmakers aren’t trying to end it, but to just rein it in a little bit. (That in itself is not the best approach. Theft should be illegal and any concession that theft should be legal under certain circumstances is evil. But this episode reveals a lot of truth in spite of that little fact.)
Prominent cops are bold in saying that they want their thievery to remain unchecked. They have revealed their covetous hearts and their names are named unashamedly in the newspaper.
Pete Carey, Colorado Springs Police Chief
Chip Taylor, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc.
Justin Smith, Larimer County Sheriff
They’re the ones who are named in the article, but I’m sure there are many, many more. Those guys don’t stop theft in their jurisdiction. They and their blue gangs are the biggest thieves.
Cops blindly enforce any and all unjust laws and then use the lame excuse that they don’t make the laws, they just enforce them. Obviously, that’s a lie and a cop out. They have the ear of the governor and lobbyist groups and they can’t claim to be impartial parties. They are a powerful constituency and they make their voices heard.
Justin ends the article saying that if the law passes, “I just simply see a lot of agencies — they will abandon forfeitures.” I certainly hope so.
UPDATE: A similar story appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain. We can add these names to the list of thieves boldly coming out of the thief closet.
Here Mark Zuckerberg touts his religion saying that we ought to have universal basic income in this country. People can tout their religion all day. The problem is that in Zuckerberg’s religion they are willing to kill those who don’t bow down and participate.
He’s perfectly free to give away his money to whomever he wants. But he doesn’t want to do that. He wants the government to do it for him. Not only that, but he wants to use the force of the state to make everyone participate in his scheme whether they want to or not.
No Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, JW, Mormon or Muslim has ever held a gun to my head or issued a credible threat of further violence if I don’t participate in their religion. However, every day I face those threats from one religion: statism. One of the fundamental blind-faith beliefs of the statist religion is that an immoral act can become a moral act if performed by the government. If this act passes through the magical religious rituals of getting the right people to vote on it or sign off on it, an immoral act becomes a moral act.
I’m sick of it. Zuckerberg can do what he wants with his money. He has a zillion dollars, but it’s not enough. He covets more money. He wants the money of others to enact this scheme, to the point that those who refuse will be jailed and murdered if they resist. I think he’s a reprehensible person, and his religion is the most evil on earth.
Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweetand sweet for bitter!”
Woe to those who call evil good. I see three possibilities for people who are calling evil good.
Deception. They do it because they know they’re evil people and they’re trying to trick you.
Perversion. They think they’re right and good but they are incorrect.
Ignorance. They don’t know what is good and evil, and they are well-intentioned, but wrong. This is the category many Christians are in without knowing it.
It’s kind of a fine line between category 2 and 3.
The point is that there are many conservatives and Christians praising this country saying this is a free country. What they’re doing is calling tyranny freedom and freedom tyranny. Woe to them.
Freedom and liberty are good things. They are a result of God’s law and God wants them for us (assuming He’s not pouring out His wrath). James 1:25 calls God’s law the perfect law of liberty! I’m proud of God’s law. Jesus said the truth will set you free (John 8:32)! If that doesn’t get you excited, I don’t know what will. Let’s go build a free country!
Christians are the only ones who can do it. Everything else is a failed worldview that leads to the tyranny of rule by man’s law. The choice is theonomy or autonomy (God’s law or self law).
Continuing to call this a free country at this point shows that you are ignorant of the teaching of God’s law. You’re willing to call bitter sweet and light darkness. You don’t know your right hand from your left. How do you rectify this fearful situation? Study the perfect law of liberty.
When I say this isn’t a free country, does that mean this isn’t the freest country? Generally, that is the argument from someone when someone says this isn’t a free country. They’ll say, “Well then why don’t you move to another country?” That is a terrible argument.
I don’t know if this is the freest country or not. But the standard isn’t other countries. The standard is the perfect law of liberty. Liberty and freedom are absolutes under God’s law just like good and evil, justice, truth and the laws of logic.
So start comparing what you see in America to God’s law–not to Mexico or Norway. Mature Christians are to be discerning good and evil, right and wrong, freedom and tyranny (Hebrews 5:14). Whatever you do, don’t be calling good evil or freedom tyranny.
In case you were wondering, it’s not just me saying all of this stuff about how terrible the police are. There are bona fide Christian leaders who are saying this stuff.
I don’t know if you watched any of the video Jeff Shirton, but the people involved did nothing but film – some for people they didn’t even know. No concern for their mistreatment? No concern that police routinely lie – and lie to cover for each other’s unjust behavior? No concern that legislators in various states are making laws to further help them cover their unjust and wicked deeds? I have had the police lie about me or others many times when arrested for our efforts on behalf of the preborn. They have erased our videotape to cover their wicked deeds. One time I was looking at 20 years in prison for the charges the police made up against me – all lies. The only thing that saved me from their lies was someone videotaping from about 75 yards away that they did not know was filming. Their video showed their lies – and the prosecutor released me with all charges dropped.
Concerning the situation that I speak of on this post, I was looking at 4 years in prison – all based on lies by the police. I simply filmed another pastor who asked me to because of the unruly officer. I stood about 15 feet away; never said one word; never raised one finger; the officer never said anything to me but approached me and beat me to the ground. Other officers arrived. They took me to the squad car and several beat me there before putting me inside it. The officers then made up a lie. The first one said I approached him and he warned me to stop and that I had an unidentifiable object in my hand (the old ‘I thought he had a gun routine’). The others covered for him and said I was so unruly it took four of them to take me to the squad car and that I fought with them there. I never did. I was handcuffed. I simply had to take their beating. They spent an hour at the police station with me cuffed saying filthy things about Jesus to me and mocking my Christian faith. Once processed to the sheriff, they then tried to confiscate my video footage, but I had already released it to friends. Why did they want it? To erase it. It showed I was telling the truth.
What they didn’t know was that my daughter had taken about 20 still shots of them walking me from where the first cop beat me to the squad car – showing there were not four officers restraining me in my unruliness but I was just walking with one officer gingerly holding my wrist while the other 3 followed about 5 feet behind. The also did not know that someone was filming them about 100 yards away showing them kicking and beating me at the squad car – and me doing nothing but taking the beating. There is SO much more I could say about this story – but in the end, after a 3 day trial, I was found “not guilty” of my charges. During my ordeal, I was contacted by three people who had been brutalized by that police department. My lawyer also found numerous reportings against their behavior including a death. This IS a problem – and attempts to stop the lawful recording of police in public can only be meant to further evil. A big part of the problem is the type of training law enforcement receive in this country.
——————————————–
You don’t care about this man who is facing 42 years in prison for simply filming the unjust/wicked actions of the police Jeff? And this is the problem, the “good” officers cover for the bad. There were 15 officers on the scene when I was beaten and charged – yet not one came forward to say it was a lie. In fact, several stood on the stand in court and lied to help their fellow officer. And not only that, but the police chief, the city attorney, and the district attorney all became involved and joined in the cover-up; to get me convicted and the officer exonerated. The only thing that kept me from prison was a just judge. I was fortunate – most are not.
I have some bad news. I was found guilty at my speeding ticket trial today. The cop did a really good job of presenting his case, and didn’t screw up the things I thought he might.
I also screwed up a little bit on the jurisdiction line of reasoning. Rather than say, “Why do you believe the law applies to everyone in the state of Colorado?” I said, “How do you know the law applies to everyone in Colorado?” He said because he has peace officer certification. So that tripped me up a little, I got side tracked by that and asked a few questions about that rather than going back and rephrasing the question. Obviously, the law applies to everyone in Colorado because he’s a peace officer is a misunderstanding of the question, and I blew it.
I eventually got him to admit that the peace officer certification is based on the law, and the right to pull me over is based on the law, but the judge stopped that and said something like, “I wanted to give you some leeway on that line of questioning, but the court determines what law applies.”
So to the judge, I said, “Can I ask you a question, then?”
She said, “You can ask, but I may not answer.”
I said, “What is the legal reason for why that law applies to everyone in the state of Colorado?”
She said, “I’m not going to answer that question.”
So I asked several questions about the tuning forks, and I cited a case that said the tuning forks have to be proven to be reliable for radar evidence to be valid.
Ultimately the judge said that the cop’s testimony about eyeballing my speed would be enough to convict me, regardless of what the radar gun said.
There is some good news. The trial took 30-45 minutes, and there were three cops sitting around waiting for the trial, so they were off the streets for that long. There were also two clerks sitting there the whole time. So, it cost them much more than the $190 they got out of me.
But the question of why the law applies to everyone in the state of Colorado goes unanswered. There is no answer, and the system is based on a blind faith religion, albeit an antichrist religion.
We will go on pretending that the laws given us by half-wits in Denver is sacrosanct.
I hope I never get another ticket, but I would like to do better next time.
I have court for a speeding ticket tomorrow. I’m going to make them earn their money at least. Everyone ought to take their tickets to trial. If they did, the courts would get clogged up, and they wouldn’t be able to handle the cases. Even if they could, they would no longer be profitable.
My wife just told me that she thinks I should just pay the ticket. However we have to keep in mind that it is important to our system that we are innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to a fair trial, and men have shed their blood for these rights. These rights are based on the Christian worldview, and it is important that we exercise our rights, which don’t come from men, but from God. I didn’t start this…a man with the power to blow my brains out, pulled me over. He started it.
Here’s a few things I’ve learned from this ticket, in addition to what I’ve learned previously. I’m also going to provide the questions and notes I’ve compiled in hopes that it might save you time.
They tell you that if you pay the ticket within a couple weeks (or whatever), you get a deal. The deal they offer as a plea bargain to everyone if you show up to plead guilty or not guilty is better than their initial offer.
When you show up to plead guilty or not guilty, I’d guess that is their break even point. They have to get you to pay the ticket or take the deal there to break even. If you plead not guilty, they will lose money.
Read the state laws on traffic tickets. I went to that first hearing, and asked the clerk if she’s a referee. She said she wasn’t, so I filed a motion to dismiss. The judge said that she agreed and rescheduled my first hearing to be in front of her. They called me and left a message, and they mailed me a notice. I showed up, but I think if I hadn’t shown up, they would have either had to drop the case or properly serve me. So I think I screwed up by showing up to that hearing voluntarily without proper service.
So my November 30th ticket is scheduled for trial on May 24. I think that postponing as long as possible also increases the chance that the cop retires/dies/moves, which would mean you are not guilty.
Here are my notes I’m taking tomorrow. I’m hoping to rake this guy over the coals as much as possible. The first portion is taken from a trial I saw where a lawyer did this to a state patrolman, and the judge dismissed the case. The second portion is based on Marc Stevens thoughts. The third part is taken from this article.
Has the state rested its case?
He never identified me as the driver. I ask that the case be dismissed.
——————————————
This law that I’m charged under, is it your belief that it applies to everyone in the state of Colorado?
What is your logical, legal reason for that belief?
So the law says that the law applies? Do you see that that is circular reasoning, and isn’t a valid answer?
———————————————
Can you describe your training in using this radar/lidar?
How is the device calibrated?
If radar:
When did you use the tuning forks?
How did you use the tuning forks?
Was this done with the operator’s manual for the device?
How are the tuning forks calibrated? State of Florida v. Allweiss
(1980) says that using the radar manufacturer’s tuning forks is tantamount to having the device test itself.
Did you have the heat on? Was the car running?
If lidar:
Did the operator have adequate training and experience?
Is the training documented?
Has the lidar been tested according to the procedures recommended by the manufacturer?
Was the unit tested against a known speed?
Does the unit include a technician certification?
What is the date of that certification (must be within 3 years according to State of Hawaii v Abiye Assay and NHTSA standards)?
Do you have the operator’s manual with you?
Was the heat on? Was the car running?
Have you had any disciplinary actions taken against you?
State of Connecticut v. Tomanelli (1966)
In the case, which is the same year as the Honeycutt case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that “outside influences may affect the accuracy of the recording by a police radar set sufficient to raise a doubt as to the reliability of the speed recorded.”
The court also stated that tuning forks must be proved to be accurate to be accepted as valid tests of a radar unit. In order to establish the accuracy of the radar unit the operator must testify to the following:
That he made tuning fork tests before and after the defendant’s speed was recorded.
That the tests were made by activating 40, 60 and 80 mph tuning forks and by observing that the unit responded correctly in each case.
State of Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971)
The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that where the only means of testing the accuracy of a radar unit is an internal mechanism within the unit, and there is no other evidence of the motorist’s speed other than the radar reading, the conviction cannot be sustained.
The court also established the following conditions for proving the accuracy of the radar unit:
The officer must have adequate training and experience in the operation of the radar unit.
The officer must testify as to how the unit was set up and the conditions the unit was operated under.
it must be proven that the unit was operated with a minimum possibility of distortion from external interference.
The unit has to be tested with an external source, such as a tuning fork or an actual test run with another vehicle with an accurately calibrated speedometer.
People of New York v. Perlman (1977)
The Suffolk County District Court ruled that the radar device was not proved to be accurate since no external test had been performed before or after the arrest. This case is significant since it established the criteria of testing before and after a citation is issued.
Possible Speech
It’s clear to me that my simple question of jurisdiction won’t be answered, because it can’t be answered. It’s clear to me that your only basis for jurisdiction is the fact that I’m within range of your gun, and you and your comrades having proven your willingness to use it. We have a system devoid of any rational or logical basis for proving jurisdiction. It is based on the blind faith antichrist religion of statism and threats of violence. It is a system of might makes right. I consider this process to be unjust. I will write a check today if I’m found guilty, not because I feel it is the right thing to do, but under protest and due to the continued threats against me if I don’t. I wasn’t hurting anyone that day. No victim of my alleged crime has come forward. I’m innocent of the charges against me and I have an excellent driving record. There is no reason why we should have men with a gun on their hip harassing non-criminal Americans for supposedly violating arbitrary speed guidelines. The only valid basis for morality and justice is found in the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that has long since been found to be unconstitutional, and what we’re left with is the arbitrary definition of justice provided by legislators gathering in Denver, a good percentage of which I wouldn’t trust to babysit my kids. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and you should repent of operating under this antichrist religious system.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
