As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed, I discovered the following artwork, being shared by an acquaintance from here, and originally posted it to my own wall, along with commentary…
“Before you make fun of children for believing in Santa Claus, remember, there are still people who believe the gov’t cares about them”
My Commentary: But… “muh elected representatives” and “muh public servants”… 🙁
The following correspondence originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after my friend, and fellow Autistic self-advocate, Jason Ross, shared graphic art from here…
Jason R.:
“Ann Frank’s visa application was turned down by the U.S. government. If she had been accepted, she could have been a 77-year-old woman living in Boston today. Remember that when you hear all this anti-refugee rhetoric.”
Rayn: But… Muh Borders! 😥
Rayn:
“Every national border in Europe marks the place where two gangs of bandits got too exhausted to kill each other anymore and signed a treaty. Patriotism is the delusion that one of these gangs of bandits is better than all the others.” Robert Anton Wilson
(Artwork originally located here, upon the Facebook page, “Muh Borders“)
Rayn:
“Nations are basically geographic regions delimited by arbitrary lines on a map and run by criminal gangs with flags.”
(Artwork originally located here, upon the Facebook page, “Muh Borders“)
I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…
“Welcome to California”
CA Senate Votes 28-8 to Exempt Itself from California Gun Laws:
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/trending/ca-senate-votes-28-8-to-exempt-itself-from-california-gun-laws/
(The California state senate agrees with Charlie Rangel that they “deserve” to own guns but the citizens do not.
They voted 28-8 to exempt themselves from the gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the California.
You think maybe this will cause Californians to rise up? NOPE! It happened 5 years ago and since California has passed a plethora of other gun laws…that only apply to citizens.
My Commentary: Shocking, right?
The following correspondence originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I shared artwork being shared by the page, “Statism is a Cult“…
Rayn:
“Without government,
violent gangs would take over.”
Nali M.: That happened in my city. I think it’s bc she kneed him in the crotch. Still should have used the taser instead.
Rayn: The officer attempted to arrest this woman for warrants that were invalid, making him nothing more than a costumed criminal, with a shiny badge, and a gun. He was operating only under color of law, and had no legal right to arrest this woman.
Arizona Cop Punches Woman in Face During Arrest:
[youtube_sc url=”ddC2Bs9ZIjU”]
She was under no obligation to cooperate in any way with the unlawful orders of these State agents, and appeared perfectly cognizant of this fact. She understood that she was being abducted, through use of assault and battery, with the intent to falsely imprison her, and chose to exercise her right to resist the criminal acts she was being subjected to, and attempted to appeal to reason and evidence, as her defense.
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest:
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
From the article:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)
I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…
Magistrate Joe Licata and defendent, Robin Clearey, in a Harris County, Texas, courtroom
Harris County Judge Says Arrests of Poor People Good for Job Security:
http://www.houstonpress.com/news/harris-county-judge-says-arrests-of-poor-people-good-for-job-security-8950616
(Meagan Flynn) The driving infractions and fines had piled up on Robin Clearey, who stood before Magistrate Joe Licata after she was ticketed for driving without working taillights, a license or valid registration.
he had been through this many times before, she told the judge, and at that very moment she also had a criminal case pending for driving with an invalid license, for which she would stay in jail unless she paid a $3,500 bond. Licata warned her that, if she didn’t pay the fines for these tickets and renew her license after paying surcharges to the Department of Public Safety, “you’re gonna get arrested every time you get pulled over.”
That was nothing to her, Clearey responded — because she had already become trapped in a cycle of arrests.
“It’s nothing to me either,” Licata told her. “It’s job security.”
My Commentary: I’ve been trying to explain this concept to Statists for years, but now you can read and hear it for yourselves!
