Like many people, I grew up watching numerous television shows and mainstream movies depicting a world in which the common police officer stood as a sentinel of civilized society against a seething underbelly of violence and chaos just beneath the surface of the world around us. Through public schooling, we were indoctrinated to fear the drug culture as a breeding ground of gangland destruction and to worship law enforcement officials as the only barrier between us and a cocaine-frosted wasteland. We were led to believe that every day police were holding back a tide of crime and terrorism. The so-called “thin blue line” was an indispensable part of a safe and prosperous nation.
To criticize or present opposition to the institution of state and federally funded law enforcement is often considered tantamount to treason – or, at the very least, it is considered unpatriotic. After all, we have all been told every moment of our lives that a world without police would immediately turn into a frothing, frenzied orgy of mass insanity and that average human beings cannot be trusted to take responsibility for the day-to-day security of their neighborhoods and towns. Official doctrine today demands a designated warrior class, separate from the rest of us, to handle the protection and care of weakling citizens.
Now, it is important to note that there are in fact many good people working in the field of law enforcement. This is not under debate and not relevant to the point I am about to make. The problem is not necessarily with all the individuals who make up law enforcement; the problem is with the existence and mandate of the institution itself. I personally do not “hate” cops per se (though some of them deserve to be hated). But I do hate corrupt government structures, and law enforcement has become the grasping arm of the elitist machine.
The downfall of any policing system arises when individuals are separated from the responsibility for their own security and society is delegated into classes of protectors, or sheepdogs, and sheep. As I have outlined in many articles, government itself has become an entity foreign to the interests of the American people. Through the false left/right paradigm, elitists have taken away the ability of the public to participate in civic duties and to preserve our principles rather than sacrifice them in the name of the “greater good.” City and state police are not subject to the tides of political elections, even if elections actually mattered. They are part of an unaccountable bureaucratic monstrosity that shifts only according to the whims of the establishment.
The existence of a separate government-controlled warrior class has caused crisis and catastrophe all throughout human history. Invariably, this warrior class ends up exalting itself as superior to the functions and values of the citizenry, rather than maintaining a sense of duty to the citizenry. The claim that the average American is not capable of proper self-security or community security is perhaps the most successful lie of the past century. This is not to say that warriors do not exist. Some people develop the proper mindset, while others do not. However, becoming a warrior is a personal psychological and spiritual pursuit meant to overcome the detriments of fear and has nothing whatsoever to do with government recognition. The fact that many law enforcement officials often refer to non-LEOs as “civilians” is a rather laughable example of the delusions of the government-paid bureaucratic warrior class in action, fantasizing as if they have been deployed to Afghanistan while writing speeding tickets in suburbia.
In the early days of America, the common citizenry through the formation of the militia WAS the warrior class. Every last able-bodied person was a sentinel and defender of the peace. The sheriff, the only elected and constitutional form of law enforcement, often had a posse, which was, again, made up of regular citizens. There was no exalted Praetorian Guard — only friends, family and neighbors. There was no need for a government dominated law enforcement structure back then, nor is there a need for one now.
The militia system was slowly eroded over decades and replaced with centralized law enforcement under the direct influence of the political elite. Currently, using the Department of Homeland Security and the integration of “fusion centers,” the police are now an army under direct federal control, equipped with military-grade technology through the 1033 program. When Barack Obama called for the creation of a “civilian national security force” just as powerful and well-funded as the military back in 2008, this is clearly what he was referring to. The results of police militarization are thoroughly negative.
In my recent article 'The Ferguson conundrum solved by community security,' I discussed the complete lack of LEO protection against looting and arson during the Ferguson, Missouri, riots, which led the Oath Keepers to provide security for innocent business owners, filling the void left behind. Law enforcement officials were apparently too busy harassing peaceful protesters and journalists to deal with the threat of a burning city, or too busy guarding government building and revealing where their true loyalties rest. I have heard arguments that the Ferguson police were not to blame for the failure because they were under orders from their superiors and under pressure from the federal government. While I would note that each individual officer has the right and the duty to refuse immoral orders, regardless of whether or not LEO's refused to protect businesses out of personal choice, or out of fear of losing their jobs, the fact remains that the public is often left to face criminality without the aid of police. And, because this is an undeniable reality, the public must take back responsibility for its security.
Whether one believes that the shooting of Michael Brown was justified or not, the police response after the fact only reinforced public expectations of corruption. Ferguson is only one example in a multitude of police abuses, and these abuses are not relegated to any one ethnicity. Leftists are not wrong when they point out the dangerous evolution of law enforcement into a government goon squad (the liberty movement was warning the world about it long before the left ever figured out what was going on). But in their half-sighted examinations, they make the mistake of believing police abuse is purely race-related. In reality, police abuse is universal — from Tamir Rice, the black 12-year-old in Cleveland shot dead by police less than two seconds after their arrival for having a toy gun in his pants, to the murder of Kelly Thomas, a white homeless man shot with a stun gun in the face and beaten for 10 minutes straight in the street until dead by California police for the crime of “not sitting still as ordered.”
In nearly all of these cases of overt police force, even when video evidence clearly indicates wrongdoing, LEOs are acquitted by the system. The reason for this should be obvious: The establishment must keep the warrior class happy, content, and untouchable; otherwise, the oligarchs lose power. No corrupt system is going to punish its own unless utterly necessary to its survival, because if it did, it would then have to admit that it is not entirely trustworthy, causing the people to question whether its existence is more dangerous than the villains it is supposed to protect us from. Government generally only cares about perpetuating its own existence; it does not care about the safety of the populace. In this way, police become a kind of Mafia or cult with their own set of rules outside of the purview of the rest of society and immune to any form of justice.
What is truly disturbing are the lengths to which some Americans (and other law enforcement) will go to rationalize any and all actions taken by police, even if they result in the death of an innocent. The Stockholm Syndrome certainly seems to be at work as portions of the public continue to worship LEOs as saviors who can do no wrong. Mention the idea of getting rid of state police, and the LEO fan club cries out in terror like children separated from their parents at a crowded shopping mall. In the end, though, all children must eventually grow up and start taking care of themselves.
At bottom, police are not protectors of the public good, not even in a technical or legal sense. Law enforcement organizations have even argued in the Supreme Court that their job is NOT to prevent crime but to enforce the law after the fact, and they have won using this assertion. That is to say, a police officer is NOT legally required to protect a person from harm, only to institute state policy once a crime is committed.
What government law enforcement is admitting to in its argument is that it does not provide security, which is what we in the liberty movement have known all along. The only service police provide is to clean up the mess left over when the carnage of a crime has subsided. If law enforcement has any purpose at all, it is to keep the public in check and in line - to promote the farce that without government protection, chaos will rule.
The communist Cheka, a security organization founded by Vladimir Lenin at the beginning of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, was notorious for random arrests and killings of civilians in the name of peace and security. Many communist Russians, true believers in the Bolshevist cause, refused to accept that the Cheka were capable of criminal abuse. They assumed that those killed must have been enemies of the state, just as the government proclaimed. And when they themselves were arrested for no apparent reason, they wrote letters from the gulags to Stalin, naively believing that he would save them from what must have been a bureaucratic error.
In fact, the Cheka had been given orders directly from the state to fill a quota of arrests in order to justify the constant propaganda the state produced warning of agents of “capitalist evil” around every corner. The Cheka, the secret police, were given warrior-class status and free reign to assert their authority over anyone, at any time, for any reason. America is only a short step away from a similar nightmare, and many in our nation suffer from the same naive faith in statism as the Russians did years ago.
The only way to avoid such a horror is to remove state-sanctioned law enforcement from the picture entirely. Is this "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"? No. Rather, it is saving the baby from a swirling virulent cesspool.
As we saw in grand scale in Ferguson, LEOs are essentially useless to the public. In response, members of the Ferguson community welcomed the Oath Keepers and their Community Preparedness Team strategy. In time, Oath Keepers CPT will train locals to provide their own protection without need for any outside aid. When locals provide their own security, when every citizen is a member of the warrior class, abuse is far less likely because the watchmen have no motivation to abuse themselves.
Arguments that this will lead to a culture of "warlords" invariably pop up when discussing the concept of community based security. Of course, when every member of a community is trained to defend themselves, abusive warlord do not last long, but then again, neither do abusive governments, which I suppose is the true reason why decentralized community security is treated with such disdain. This is yet another contrived attempt to insinuate that the American people cannot be trusted with their own defense, but the government can. It is built around the illusion that state police are somehow "impartial observers" and actors. This has simply never been so. State controlled police have every motivation to protect state interests, and as long as they are given free license to do whatever they please without consequence, most of them will continue to do so. Impartiality is non-existent in the world of law enforcement.
Police misconduct has a cumulative effect on a culture. We do not forget all of the oversteps of the past; we merely file them away until we finally reach a breaking point. It is important for LEOs to understand that while they may have a relative immunity to legal reparations, they are not immune to the rage of the populace and will likely find their fragile warrior personas rather inadequate when that day arrives. For the true constitutional police out there, it is time to take sides, either with good American people or with the corrupt establishment. It is impossible to serve both. The illusion of the “thin blue line” is quickly fading. The only question now is: What is going to replace it? The establishment would have you believe there are only two options: total chaos or martial law. But there has always been a third alternative they seek to suppress: the return of community defense, the resurgence of localized responsibility and the victory of personal liberty over false security.
REMINDER: Alt-Market's winter donation drive is now underway! If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by Edwin Vieira , December 10, 2014
If this article carried through on its comments about the Militia, and called for the revitalization of the Militia according to constitutional principles, it would be exactly on target. However, the author does not seem to realize that the Militia always were and now remain governmental entities, not private organizations. They are the institutions through which the people participate, in the most direct--and, if necessary, forceful--manner in self-government. As governmental institutions consisting of the people themselves, the Militia need hardly be feared, in contrast to elitist, professional police imbued with a "warrior" mentality antagonistic to the people. In any event, the article is good, because it demonstrates that some observers are, albeit perhaps slowly and only partially, coming around to the correct view on this matter.
written by Brandon Smith , December 10, 2014
@Edwin
While I appreciate your viewpoint and your books, Edwin, I think you are applying artificial and rather academic restrictions on the concept of community security. The fact of the matter is, no state government is going to support the formation of a true militia in the sense that the Founding Fathers intended, because all state governments are federally controlled and corrupt. This is the REALITY of what we are dealing with today. It is all well and good to approach the issue from theoretical legality and theoretical application, but in the end you still end up with no militia.
The Oath Keeper CPT program is the best we are going to get for now (or perhaps ever), and it has had tangible success in the real world. I have not missed or overlooked the traditional roles of the militia. However, I find that to pursue such roles under our current dynamic, and essentially ASKING government for permission to allow us to pursue those roles, is a waste of time and energy better spent on actually accomplishing something concrete. You are more than welcome to continue the quest for "legitimized" militia, but I think I will stick with the CPT program, and we'll see which method affects real change first.
written by Bot , December 10, 2014
The only solution is the one you espouse Brandon, and that's remove law enforcement and policing from the State entirely. The free market can provide the solutions; a market in which reputation, quality and competition provide the criteria all businesses must meet in order to effectively serve their customers or else they will fail. Government meets none of these.
Until humankind realizes that we don't really need government to coexist peacefully things will not change.
written by Cougar , December 10, 2014
The CPT Program is seemingly doing a great job but could we not continue to train and prepare -- all the while continuing to push for reactivation of the Militia of the Several States? If all the Liberty groups could pull together and support the Oath Keepers perhaps we could win over the majority in the States and perhaps manage to regain our States rights somewhere in the near future. We might as well plan big.
written by nvscanner , December 11, 2014
The LEO system is now inherently corrupt.
There are NO good cops. If they were to exist
They would arrest, charge and testify against their
Associates for the criminal violations they witness.
They do not do this. Instead they then a blind eye
To the crimes their blue brethren commit, often falsifying
Their written reports to keep their criminal associates free from worry over accountability. No....there are NO GOOD COPS. The system is utterly corrupt. Don't believe me?
Ask Frank Serpico....the system has been corrupt for decades.
written by Brandon Smith , December 11, 2014
@Cougar
That would be great, and it's always good to have goals, but I don't have much hope in current government supporting any measure that would decentralize power, and I certainly don't expect such an event before America suffers a severe collapse. We have to do what we must, with or without government approval, and if we make it to a day when a traditional constitutional militia is possible, I'll be as happy as anyone else.
written by Guillermo Piedras , December 11, 2014
Yes. Dissolve law enforcement in some of the most chaotic communities in the nation. Magically project this fantasy of reasonableness onto a population addicted to narcissism. What could possibly go wrong.
written by Cal , December 11, 2014
"If this article carried through on its comments about the Militia, and called for the revitalization of the Militia according to constitutional principles, it would be exactly on target"
You are correct Dr. Vieira. As is Brandon when he says, "The fact of the matter is, no state government is going to support the formation of a true militia in the sense that the Founding Fathers intended, because all state governments are federally controlled and corrupt."
That does not negate the problem. Brandon, we do not need the states to "support us" in the Militia. The US Constitution does. When in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 (and really Clause 11) because they refer to when we have a LEGITIMATE government that is still viable, which we do not.
But we are not left bereft without a Militia because WE are the Source of all governmental power through the US Constitution which recognizes us as such and assigns the duties to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Dr. Vieira, a question that I think you can answer for me. Is not the Second Amendment, the purpose of it (the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms) a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support"?
Tench Coxe on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it's the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
This may be a bit farfetched but I have found others who have written upon it. The term "well regulated", what was its meaning at the time of the founders and in the way they put it in the Second Amendment. In all other places where it is used in one form or another they always say "who" regulates, and "what" is regulated, correct? Yet that is not done in the Second Amendment.
That the Framers chose to use the term "well regulated" when describing the militia and did not define the "who" or "what" regarding that regulation.
To make this short when there is so much information I'd like to use to back up my conclusion (including using the general "a", instead of the more definite "the" in the Second) I believe that we regulate ourselves as the Militia. That under the US Constitution it would be lawful and proper for those already trained to create, train, and REGULATE each state's Militia.
The Militia can be called out by the Governor and by the Congress, but that does not necessarily mean that we cannot call ourselves (the officers of, and now we need those trained to be so to step up) out as the Militia to defend our nation against traitors and domestic enemies. It would be the already trained that would train the Militia, not the Governor himself/herself. They would assign the officers, etc, but we cannot trust (a lot of) them to do so at this time.
written by Brandon Smith , December 11, 2014
@Guillermo
What exactly was so "reasonable" about the police actions in Ferguson, where they harassed peaceful protestors and journalists while letting looters and arsonists run rampant? Where was the "narcissism" amongst the Oath Keepers who volunteered at risk of their lives to defend the businesses and people the police would not? I think it is YOU that is living in a fantasy world; a world in which the police actually matter despite their consistent failures.
written by Brandon Smith , December 11, 2014
@Cal
I agree, we do not need the states to support us to do what is necessary. However, I think what Edwin is describing and which he seems to think I don't recognize is that constitutionally, the militia is an element of the public and political sphere. Again, it would be great to have a militia in every community that is recognized by the elected government, and I would love to see that happen, but my point remains - our government, local, state, and federal, is so thoroughly corrupt that it is unlikely the system will ever allow militias to be legitimized.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue such a goal in the VERY long term, but in the meantime, we must take the steps necessary towards independent community security. I can't in good conscience slam my face over and over again into the political wall fighting a purely intellectual battle for a constitutionally correct militia while good people suffer. My personality does not lend itself to academic solutions - I have to actually do something tangible, otherwise, what is the point?
written by Guillermo Piedras , December 11, 2014
Perhaps, Brandon, unlike you I have actually been a first responder to fatality accidents, medical crises, domestic violence, actual riots and criminal homicides. I have been with people in mental health crises using the wits I could keep about me to talk these poor folks down. I have seen thugs of every racial and political flavor who threatened me or my family. There were seldom citizens who were willing to intervene in these incidents and I thank God I never had to take a life. Businesses in Ferguson are free to invite Oathkeepers onto their private property and the peaceful protesters you cite seem to invite the anarchists who use the protest to conduct assaults against police. The big mistake was when the DoJ stepped in to remove dogs and fire hoses as options for police so you experienced the subsequent violence and looting.
written by Brandon Smith , December 11, 2014
There are numerous incidences in which citizens intervene, but LEO's and the government consistently try to stop the public from taking responsibility for their communities. If Oath Keepers are welcome to guard private businesses, then why did law enforcement try to stop them on several occasions? It is because law enforcement sees itself as a separate and superior "warrior class" that can somehow do the job "better". Ferguson proved that this is a police fantasy.
The bottom line is, Oath Keepers succeeded where the police failed. The Oath Keepers didn't need fire hoses and dogs to stop those buildings from being burned. LEO's were utterly useless in Ferguson, just as they are in most scenarios. "First responders" is a rather dishonest label. LEO's are actually "second responders"; the citizens of the community are always on the scene first, and if the government would get out of their way, the nation would be a much safer place than it is today. Most LEO's are not protectors of the public, they are janitors who clean up the mess after a crime has already been committed.
written by Guillermo Piedras , December 11, 2014
keep living that fantasy....the extreme left and right have always attacked police and military who valiantly do their jobs. As in the Vietnam era when cops were called "pigs" and soldiers were called "baby killers" it continues today. The far left and far right have the same paranoid fantasies.
written by pnoldguy , December 11, 2014
I had the good fortune to talk to one of the Oathkeepers that participated in Ferguson, and the message from him was that the rank and file officers were not hostile to them, but upper management was. They actually had snipers aiming at the Oathkeepers during the protests.
He also said that vans and buses brought many protestors from out of town, and the signs they carried were professionally printed by the communist party usa.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Saul Alinsky
written by Brandon Smith , December 11, 2014
@Guillermo
I'm not talking about soldiers, and I'm not talking about the Vietnam era, guy. I'm talking about the FACTUAL failures of law enforcement TODAY, including the undeniable failures in Ferguson. If you feel that pointing out the obvious failures of state funded police is the same as "attacking" them, then perhaps you are suffering from a delusional bias.
Sometimes the truth hurts. In this case, it hurts the citizenry more than it hurts LEOs. Were the failures in Ferguson a "paranoid fantasy"? No. They are a reality - a reality which must be dealt with. If the system is not providing the public with the security they need, then the public must provide that security for themselves. To deny them the right to that security or to claim they are not "qualified" to defend themselves is an act of pure elitism. Frankly, America would be much better off without the arrogance of the law enforcement structure.
written by Brandon Smith , December 11, 2014
@pnold
That is correct. LEO leadership was the primary problem. But, I would point out that the LEOs present still followed the immoral orders they were given, even though they did not agree with them. This is the problem with a state controlled police force - they take orders from corrupt politicians while the general community does not. Therefore, the community will always be more capable of providing better security that the police.
written by Scottar , December 12, 2014
Military organization of citizens with limited military training who are available for emergency service, usually for local defense.
In many countries the militia is of ancient origin. The Anglo-Saxons required every able-bodied free male to serve.
In colonial America it was the only defense against hostile Indians when regular British forces were not available. In the American Revolution the militia, called the Minutemen, provided the bulk of the American forces.
Militias played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. State-controlled volunteer militias in the U.S. became the National Guard. British militia units, begun in the 16th century for home defense and answerable to the county sheriff or lord lieutenant, were absorbed into the regular army in the 20th century.
Today various paramilitary organizations, from U.S. white supremacists to revolutionaries in the developing world, use the term militia to accentuate their populist origins.
From this definition it's clear militias started out as local civilian armies for community or state emergency forces and later got trans-morphed into the state controlled national guard. But lately the federal government has used them for fighting terrorist wars in the name of state emergencies and the national guards as far as I know are entirely drawn from ex-military citizens.
written by Brandon Smith , December 12, 2014
@Scottar
The militia by Constitutional definition is EVERY able bodied member of the population for community defense against all enemies foreign AND domestic. This is the only definition that applies when we discuss the "militia" here.
written by iwitness02 , December 12, 2014
Police misconduct has a cumulative effect on a culture. This just might be their Huckleberry.
written by justanobserver , December 12, 2014
Bot,
Your conjecture that free markets can provide the solutions lacks the existence of free markets.
Free market rhetoric is all well and good. No market forces are currently free of manipulation.
written by @ Brandon , December 12, 2014
I believe you are correct in your assessment. I just think it is an answer to the nay sayers if we espouse the reactivation of the millitia somewhere in the future. In reality, the Oath Keeper movement will become the Militia when enough citizens are trained and begin pushing their local government for action.
Cougar
written by Cougar2 , December 12, 2014
Didn't mean to imply this was your response
written by Ty , December 13, 2014
Great article Brandon.
I wonder the end game of those controlling the media. Do they vilify and roast Local law enforcement to harden them ... So when the time is right (local police frustrated and angry at ongoing abuses they receive over time) they will possibly violently turn on the citizenry they are sworn to serve & protect. Of course it would be "for the greater good" (and for a little pay back). This would put all local police behind government control. Or is this a way to roll in a new national law enforcement team (once again controlled by the government) that has "special training" for the difficulties of our day. I'm thinking home land security.
Just a down the road thought.
written by Michael James , December 14, 2014
Clearly, Mr.Smith, you have spent much time in front of the television.
Opinions based on values learned through televised popular media have no validity in the real world.
You may have heard the saying "walk a mile in their shoes" there is truth in that old adage.
Do not be quick in your opinions, particularly in matters you have not experienced.
Spend some time in the world, it will give you a bit of credibility, or stay inside isolated from life and continue to appear childishly naive.
written by Brandon Smith , December 15, 2014
@Michael
That's exactly what I said - the glorification of law enforcement in television and media is a contrived fantasy. Did you not comprehend the article?
I have more than enough experience dealing with corrupt police, and, I work closely with Oath Keeping police. I've seen both sides of the spectrum, far more likely than you ever have or will. You don't need to live life as a corrupt LEO working under corrupt political leadership to know police corruption when you see it. Your ignorant notion that we all have to be cops so that we can appreciate them overlooks the reality that many people have seen the victimization of citizens by those same police. Ferguson was a perfect example. Perhaps LEOs should be the ones to put themselves in OUR shoes, since they are the ones actively violating people's liberties. Your logic is rather skewed and twisted, my friend.
written by Michael James , December 15, 2014
Mr. Smith, your argument on the corrupt nature of LE is media driven.
You are promoting the media myth of an out of control, racist, law enforcement crisis.
Your assessment of law enforcement as the great oppressor is an old and tired opinion, expressed by the young and under experienced members of every generation.
Without going into great detail, I can assure you I have a great deal of experience with government authority, from both sides, a misspent youth and forced familiarization with the justice system led me into the service of my country. I served Honorably for far beyond the minimum required by the California courts.
In the course of my service I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, this oath does not expire.
Decades later I find myself once again in public service, recently taking a similar oath to defend and support the Constitution of the State of Arizona, this oath also does not expire.
I have been on both sides of this issue, from my stand point, you don't have the slightest fucking idea what you are talking about.
written by Brandon Smith , December 15, 2014
@Michael James
No, it's fact driven. The bias amongst the cop cult never ceases to amaze me. Oath Keepers experienced the corruption first hand in Ferguson when local and state police tried to remove them from the buildings they were protecting. A few of the cops even openly admitted that this was due to leadership working with the feds.
I never said anything about racism. In fact, I point out that police brutality tends to be color blind.
I frankly couldn't care less about your history or your supposed service. I have no way to verify it, and as stated in the article, the problem is not individual cops (though sometimes it is), the problem is the government dominated law enforcement system itself. I'm afraid that if you intend to argue that the system is NOT corrupt, even after what we saw in Ferguson, then you are a liar at best, and clearly not an Oath Keeper. If you actually do hold your oath dear, then at least grow some balls and have the courage to point out the corruption amongst your "brotherhood" when it occurs. If you plan to defend that corruption no matter the consequence because its exposure might reflect badly on your profession, then you are nothing more than a coward. Come on out to Eureka, Montana and I'll be happy to tell you to your face if that will help motivate you to pull your head out of your hinder.
written by Michael James , December 16, 2014
Mr, Smith, please provide a single personally witnessed account of LE corruption in Ferguson. I am intrigued, and have reread your article searching for some indication of information that was not fed to the public through the media.
The tale of the Oath Keeper confrontation/discussion with local LEOs, assessed by you to be an infringement on their personal freedom is common knowledge, built upon by the fear mongering libertarian media ala Alex Jones.
Please, prove me wrong in my assessment of your credibility, give me one verifiable account of LE corruption in Ferguson that you have personally witnessed, or have specific knowledge of, that has not been presented in the media.
written by Brandon Smith , December 16, 2014
@Michael
Really? This was mainstream news, guy. And all over the Oath Keeper website, not just Alex Jones. Perhaps you need to do a little more research before arguing subjects you clearly do not understand, or are unwilling to educate yourself on.
Not that I need to qualify myself to you, but Stewart Rhodes is a close friend of mine. I help him train his local CPT. I'm the associate editor of the Oath Keeper website. I knew absolutely EVERYTHING that went on in Ferguson as it happened. I was in his house when he got the call that a state police sniper team had been dispatched and were pointing weapons at the Ferguson team. Rhodes asked me directly my opinion on what should be done when police attempted to run them off the rooftops (I believed they should stay put, which they ended up doing). Why would I need to present information "not" in the media? All of the information in the alternative media and most of the information in the mainstream is correct.
Google these headlines from the St. Louis Dispatch:
Police shut down mysterious 'Oath Keepers' guarding rooftops in downtown Ferguson
'Oath Keepers' are back on the rooftops in Ferguson despite St. Louis County ordinance
Google the Fox News article entitled:
Armed 'Oath Keepers' Threatened With Arrest for Guarding Ferguson Shops
Then watch Ben Swann's interview with the Oath Keepers on the ground in Ferguson entitled:
Oath Keepers Surrounded by 50 Police Told To Stop Defending Building in Ferguson From Fires
Read Mikael Thalen's article on how police were ordered by the feds to harass Oath Keeper personnel, entitled:
Feds Enable Arsonists, Target Oath Keepers Protecting Ferguson Businesses
Then go to the Oath Keepers website and read their point by point coverage of the event including the numerous ways in which police pressured and lied in an attempt to stop them from defending the businesses property owners ASKED them to protect.
Are you attempting to assert that ALL of these people including the Oath Keepers present are lying? Because that would be quite a conspiracy theory. Why don't you contact the Oath Keepers involved and the business owners. Take your own advice and put yourself in their shoes. Listen to what they have to say.
Then for good measure, read the article from the Free Thought Project entitled:
CA Cop is Being Fired for NOT Using Violence to Resolve a Situation
Then read Frank Serpico's long career and accounting of systemic and cancerous police corruption. Anyone who claims the Law Enforcement System is not suffering from corruption is either ignorant, insane, or knows the truth but wishes to hide it. Attempting to remove volunteer security from those buildings directly threatened with arson in Ferguson using lies and color-of-law is the apex of corruption.
written by Brandon Smith , December 16, 2014
@Michael
It is clear you have no intention of listening to reason or the undeniable facts at hand. Attempting to make this discussion about me rather than the information is a typical Alinsky tactic common amongst web trolls with an agenda. It's also just plain lazy and incompetent. You clearly cannot counter the facts I have established (including the fact that I am closely involved with the operations of Oath Keepers), and so you have decided to use the strategy of dismissing the facts because I happen to be the person relaying them. Your personal opinion of me is truly irrelevant in light of the information.
You reveal your dishonest nature by your methods.
I'm certainly not going to further entertain the circular arguments of a troll using Alinsky-style distraction, but one thing is clear - you are no Oath Keeper and most likely not even a police officer. If you can email me some proof that you are an officer and also set aside your childish attempts to make the debate about me rather than the information, then perhaps we can continue in a more constructive manner.
written by Frank Serpico , December 17, 2014
Great article, & great job steering clear of that cop-troll's convoluted logic... Truth is there really are no good LEOs left - anyone with the brains and compassion to do the job correctly has already gotten out of the profession, having seen it for the authoritarian apparatus it has become. The ones that are left are the garden variety "just following orders" brownshirts. This is why the intellectual bar has been systematically lowered, to the point where returning vets with raging PTSD are routinely hired by departments across the country. Even adjusted for the below-average IQ standards currently required to become a cop, I think the average officer can see the writing on the wall - It is going to take a social-collapse level situation to finally bring the citizens head to head with this issue. Cops are already at the top of most Patriots' SHTF short-list. When society finally falls apart completely, just watch how fast these pansies ditch their uniforms & head for the hills.......
