Rantz / Opinion
I am sorry… but I saw this meme on a friend’s timeline recently. I feel compelled to respond – primarily out of the irony that many of the same people who are crying about how not all refugees are a problem, also seem to be the same ones calling all cops racist murderers. This meme was actually a re-post from Austin Petersen’s page – a man posing as a Libertarian candidate. I also write this today because I clicked on the picture and reviewed some of the comments. I have noticed that Petersen makes a habit of slamming conservatives who point out his less than thought-out positions. Well, most of you know how I feel about bullies. So here I am.
Let’s start with the fact that this meme came with the statement “Pow, right in the kisser” as though, he made some earth shattering discovery of logical disconnect. Hardly the case. In fact, if anything happened, we learned a little bit about Petersen.
“Pow, right in the kisser” is exactly right, but really only directed at Petersen. I want to show you what I mean, but we have to play his little game to do it. So let’s do a quick compare and contrast of the “bad apples“.
I think you will find this to be just as funny as I do.
- Let’s be honest… the evidence suggests that less of either group is probably better for us – cop or refugee.
- As a whole, both groups don’t really know the Constitution, there are some, but it’s not most. (Clarity: most probably couldn’t tell you what the spirit of Article 4 Section 4 or Article 3 Section 3 is without looking it up.)
- Which means that both groups probably don’t really care about your rights or even know what they are – again, some do, but not most.
- Ironically, both seem to prefer a type of law that more often than not contradicts the Constitution.
- It is true that both groups present themselves as peaceful, loving, and caring.
- But the “bad apples” in both groups repeatedly find themselves on videos being quite the opposite.
- Both groups would prefer you were unarmed – unless of course you are on their side.
- But the “bad apples” in both are willing to bring the fight to your door if they feel it is necessary.
- And while both groups are mostly good, and while we all agree that there are indeed some “bad apples“…
- That doesn’t matter anyway, because you wouldn’t know if they were “bad” until it was too late.
- Of course this has a lot to do with how their history of violence was missed and not documented (which I will touch on in a minute).
- Perhaps that is why we have the need to create a vetting process for both groups. Of course, some will still slip through the cracks…
- Which is why in America (and a REAL Libertarian would know this) we don’t have to let Cops in without the proper documentation. They can’t even get the job without a background check and a psychological evaluation. Not to mention the fact that we also have the right to defend ourselves against them… lethally.
Is this what you are implying? Perhaps we fully embrace the 2nd Amendment allow the relocation. Okay. But this may result in people seeing “scary ghost guns” that hold “clipozines” on the backs of concerned Americans. Or perhaps you didn’t know that about citizen Right in regard to law enforcement. I’ve written about this before.
- “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.”
- “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
- “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
Have I completely obliterated that childish point here? Well let me continue just to be sure.
Citizens protecting themselves against other citizens who already live here, who took a job, and swore an a oath surrounding public safety and tend to remain in their jurisdiction; and the court agreed it was the right thing to do. Can you imagine how the citizenry will react to non-citizens who were not properly vetted and threaten public safety? It’s already been said that they are joining up with pre-established sleeper cells. Imagine how the courts will be forced to rule. This is not a hard to thing to figure out and it doesn’t end well if you think about it.
In fact, now that I think about it… I agree! Let’s NOT let in refugees that can’t be certified as non-combatants for the same reasons we should reduce the amount of law enforcement in this country. While we are at it, we could also increase the scrutiny and vetting process on both! Great idea!
Personally, and as a Constitutionalist, I am not really interested in helping those who don’t care about supporting or defending the Constitution and our unalienable Rights anymore than I am interested in hurting them – citizen or not. If you threaten me, my rights, life, or family, we are going to have an issue. If you can demonstrate a desire to assimilate and follow the law – cop or refugee – then I will support you. But we are not seeing that and that is my problem.
The unfortunate part is that cops are already here, and the citizenry is starting to find out that fewer cops might be a good idea. Fewer cops, fewer bad apples, right? But the difference is that cops can be fired. Fewer refugees, fewer bad apples, right? But can refugees be fired? Nope. As James Comey – the director of the FBI – recently said; the federal government simply does not have the ability to conduct thorough enough background checks on these refugees. Not exactly apples to apples here.
So the result could be potentially horrific, especially when you consider that even if a cop kills someone out of malice, it may be one or two people. A terrorist on the other hand, seeks a shocking body count. This is why comparing Syrian Refugees to Law Enforcement officers in an attempt to sway people towards some left, liberal or Marxist agenda – while at the same time ignoring logic and/or reason – is nothing short of intellectual masturbation without the finish.
I find it a little odd that a “Libertarian” would present the argument in such a way in the first place, and then bash those who try to point out the fallacy. Ron Paul has even stated that “The reason so many are fleeing places like Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq is that US and European interventionist foreign policy has left these countries destabilized with no hopes of economic recovery. This mass migration from the Middle East and beyond is a direct result of the neocon foreign policy of regime change, invasion, and pushing “democracy” at the barrel of a gun.”
That doesn’t mean we should destabilize our own nation by accepting/forcing the disgruntled masses to relocate into a land they have been raised to hate and rightfully resent. It means we should leave them alone and stop the empire building; you know… the Libertarian agenda! If government intervention and national division is what got us here, what makes anyone think more government intervention and further national division will help fix anything?
To law enforcement personnel who are truly Constitutional defenders – this message obviously was not meant to include you. I’m sure you could agree that this nation could do without a lot of people who have sworn an oath to defend something they know nothing about. Thank you for standing for what is right and just and making the right decisions when it matters most.