What a Crock from Law Enforcement

Let’s review the second amendment of the US Constitution:

2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I want to be clear that this amendment protects the people from a federal government that has usurped the security of a free state. The fool below (and Sheriff Donnie Harrison in Wake County) believe that people who stand up against federal tyranny are dangerous criminals instead of sovereign citizens. See the irony? People who stand up for the supreme law of the land are now considered to be a threat to the country.

Let’s now review Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government? So which is it? Are we sovereign citizens under North Carolina or are we now domestic enemies who are a threat to national security? The labels used to marginalize our natural laws and founding documents have become a farce. If you support the Constitution: you are a threat. Why else is the Obama administration vetting its top military commanders for allegiance to the government instead of the Constitution.

If our law enforcement is now using this label as a means to suppress Liberty, they should at least not hide behind the Constitution which give us the right to be Sovereign Citizens.

David DeGerolamo

Related Article:

Sheriff Donnie Harrison

10 tips and tactics for investigating Sovereign Citizens

Moe Greenberg

Moe Greenberg

Law enforcement officers across the country are experiencing a growing number of contacts with Sovereign Citizens — individuals and groups who possess a strong anti-government ideology.

Because they believe the government, its representatives, laws, and policies are illegitimate, Sovereign Citizens regularly find themselves in conflict with the law. Although it’s difficult to accurately access their numbers, it is safe to say that since 2000, their numbers and the violent incidents associated with them have increased at an alarming rate.

Here, I’ll provide you with some investigative tips and suggestions should you encounter a Sovereign Citizen, but, I’d be remiss if I did not take a moment to emphasize that whether you’re dealing with a novice or a hardliner Sovereign Citizen, the prospect of violent action and threats to officer safety should never be taken for granted.

More…

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Domestic Enemies, Editorial and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to What a Crock from Law Enforcement

  1. Doug says:

    What violent incidents is he referring to??? He is just reading from the communist playbook. I’m so tired of the vague statements and zero facts to back them up!!

  2. ncthreeper says:

    I will be the first to say that I do not agree with SOME of the tactics employed by the SC movement, the comments from that website were just sickening and disgusting. And people wonder why there is such a hatred for LEO’s.

  3. Hans says:

    Agents of authority alway fear a free man who understands the proper limits on government and from where his Rights originate.

    Law enforcement are instructed, by the governments that commission their existence, to believe rights are merely privileges and therefore subject to limitations by statute, ordinance and regulation.

    They are afraid of men who understand the nature of Rights:

    “The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.”

    “Individual rights state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society. They codify man’s protection from the initiation of force, as required by his rational nature. Being required by man’s rational nature, rights are not arbitrary or negotiable. They are absolute requirements for life within a society. Rights are absolute.”

    Because government and law enforcement make their living from the conflict established by usurping Rights of men, they will never sanction the Rightful Liberty of a man who does no real harm and does not initiate force against others.

    Citizenship is an acknowledgement of the obligations that derive from participation in our government with all its extra constitutional encroachments. Citizenship has evolved into indentured servitude.

    I don’t like the label “sovereign citizen” as it contains an inherent cognitive dissonance.

    Call me a “free man”, or a “sovereign man” Do not insult me with the label citizen … I am not a serf of the rapidly evolving ObamaReich.

    “That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary, to preserve the blessings of liberty.”
    ~ Article XXI, Declaration of Rights, North Carolina, 17 December 1776

    • tmedlin says:

      as usual, I need this dumbed down. Re: absolute rights, which seems to be a major issue for many. Am I correct in understanding that the right to life is NOT an absolute right because in taking the innocent life of another (example-an armed robbery where the victim is killed) the perpetrator may (or may not) forfeit his right to life. The ONLY absolute rights are those you identified above”…the right of personal security…” Am I following this correctly?

      • Hans says:

        @tmedlin

        Your confusion may result from the introduction of “force”, the murder, and the concept of ‘forfeit’. Let’s examine this in small steps.

        I own myself, the Person. To defend my life I require freedom of movement and action, the Liberty. To sustain my life I require things such as food and shelter which are produced by my thoughts and labor, the Property.

        As a free man or sovereign, I cannot transfer ownership of my Person to another; that would make me a slave. I cannot allow others to control my freedom of action or my property; that would make me a serf.

        The reason these three Rights are ABSOLUTE is that they cannot be severed in whole or in part from me without changing my status from sovereign to serf.

        In legal terms, these rights are un-alien-able … one cannot place a lien against my Person, my Liberty or my Property without destroying my fundamental sovereignty.

        Other people can encroach and infringe upon my Person, Liberty or Property but they can only do so by force; against my will. Now we deal with the initiation of force.

        “The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent. The initiation of force is never moral.

        Man’s nature is such that he survives by reason. Survival by reason requires the ability to act on your reason. Force destroys that ability. When you use force against someone, you are destroying their ability to survive by destroying their ability to use reason, and their ability to survive will suffer to the extent that force is used.

        Retaliatory force is a response to force. It is force meeting force in kind. It is the only proper response to a person who initiates force. Since force inhibits survival, men can only thrive within a society if they are shielded from the coercion of others. Government is instituted among men to fulfill this function.”

        http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_InitiationOfForce.html

        The murder has forfeit his/her Right to life because in the act of murder he/she initiated force to terminate the life of another.

        The sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure the unalienable Rights of individuals from infringement and encroachment.

        • tmedlin says:

          OK, I understand what you have written, so far. Let’s take this to the 2nd amendment. I have heard, for example at Moccasin Creek, people say that the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) is an absolute right. It would seem to me, that the absolute right would be the right to self defense, and the right to bear arms would be a means to that absolute right to self-defense. If someone takes the life of another, is sentenced to life in prison, then he has forfeited that right to keep and bear arms -- meaning the right to keep and bear arms is NOT an absolute right. The “god-given” right or natural right, would be the right to self-defense. Right, or wrong and why?

          • rogerunited says:

            In practice, you only have the rights that you can exercise. Might makes rights. So, I guess, absolute rights don’t exist outside of theory.

  4. David says:

    I am working on publishing a video now with Donnie Harrison’s comments on sovereign citizens.

  5. Hans says:

    @tmedlin

    OK. We agree I have an ABSOLUTE Right to my life, my personal security.

    Inherent in that assertion is my ability to defend my life “by any means necessary” -- consistent with the concept of retaliatory use of force in my prior comment.

    “By any means necessary” empowers me to move and act as I deem necessary (unconstrained Liberty) with no restriction on the means I choose to employ to neutralize the force (unconstrained Property).

    “The right to keep and bear arms” is therefore a derived right, but no less fundamental or less absolute than the Right of Life that it protects.

    Any effort to limit the choice, availability and use of arms / weapons sets limits upon how, to what extent and when I may defend my life.

    Unalienable Rights are Absolute. For free and sovereign men, derived rights are also absolute. They cannot be otherwise.

  6. tmedlin says:

    “By any means necessary” empowers me to move and act as I deem necessary (unconstrained Liberty) with no restriction on the means I choose to employ to neutralize the force (unconstrained Property).

    So, is this why some people might declare that they have the right to possess, chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry, or RPG’s or whatever? If so, then this is where we are going to differ.

    The danger to society (other free men) is so great, SO great, that there would have to be some constraints in place to protect the absolute rights of others. Afterall, that is, in my opinion, the role of government.

    Of course, over the years and in particular of late, we have seen the gross over reach by government -- for example in NY and Connecticut. But that’s the whole point of letting the people in that state decide what they want their laws to be…their man-made laws, derived from God’s laws.

    When the state they live in, passes laws they cannot live with, they have the absolute right to move -- and many people are. When NC reaches that point with me, I’ll simply leave.

    I’d like to see the whole gun control issue resolved at the state level -- same with abortion. Guess that makes me a “10ther” 🙂

    • rogerunited says:

      A key point in libertarian thought is that everybody is rational. That idea underpins everything else, ie the right to own biological weapons, etc.

      Leaving the State rather than staying and fighting is a poor idea. Eventually, you will have ceded the entire country to your enemy and will have nowhere to go.

  7. Hans says:

    “…that’s the whole point of letting the people in that state decide what they want their laws to be…”

    This is the essence of ‘popular tyranny’. Our founders warned against the encroachment of evil by democracy. Are you happy with the results: Patriot Act, NDAA, Obamacare, Gun Control, etc ?

    “When the state they live in, passes laws they cannot live with, they have the absolute right to move…”

    And why should I be ‘forced’ to abandon my land move elsewhere by other men / women who refuse to acknowledge my Right to live among them in peace; in the absence of Malum Prohibitum coercion? Besides, the 14th Amendment is used to force uniformity in law across the states and remove safe-havens for liberty.

    It appears you have consumed too much of the statist Cool-Aid.

    • rogerunited says:

      That’s funny. When I argue with libertarians, they usually tell me to move and I reply as you did!

      Your point about the 14th is a big one. The 14th Amendment needs to be repealed.

      “Liberties” are social precincts in which the individual can move without any coercion; “Liberty,” on the other hand, is a metaphysical principle in whose name a sect seeks to impose its ideals of conduct on everyone else. -Don Colacho

  8. Pingback: Colo. undersheriff warns: State police, Homeland Security to target Christians | Prepper Podcast Radio Network

Comments are closed.