Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Only "Extremists" Believe They Have a Right to be Left Alone



Eccentric, sure, but essentially harmless: Ernie terTelgte.
Ernie Wayne terTelgte is a poor man from a tiny village in Montana who believes that nature gives him a license to live. Barack Obama is a wealthy and privileged man residing at the seat of power who believes his position gives him a license to kill. Naturally, the Tolerance Commissars are pretending that the former is a menace to society, because of the contempt he displays for the system that facilitates the crimes committed by the latter. 

Last August, terTelgte was fishing at Three Forks Pond with his eleven-year-old son when they were accosted by Adam Pankratz, who is employed as a warden by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Service. 

When Pankratz saw terTelgte reeling in a fish, the warden asked if he had a fishing license. TerTelgte replied that he didn’t need one. Pretending to concede the point, the warden persisted in demanding that terTelgte provide identification. When both teTelgte and his son quite sensibly refused the demand, Pankratz called for assistance, and Three Forks Police Officer Colter Metcalf quickly arrived.
 
Officer Metcalf.
Officer Metcalf made a brief and unsuccessful attempt to learn terTelgte’s identity.

Pankratz later said that he and Metcalf were concerned by the fact that terTelgte’s “body language” was “tense,” that his language was “curt,” and that he kept telling them to “walk away” and “just leave me alone.” This is a description of someone whose behavior was defensive. But Pankratz and Metcalf, as representatives of the coercive caste, insisted on escalating the encounter by arresting him for “obstruction.”

“We didn’t want it to go this far, especially with the son … but we couldn’t identify him,” Pankratz complained, assuming that a tax-funded aggressor is entitled to sympathy because of his occupation.

Since terTelgte had no legal duty to present identification (Montana code authorizes “stop and frisk”-style harassment of citizens, but doesn’t specify that citizens have a duty to identify themselves), the arrest was unlawful. As is the case elsewhere, Montana state statutes authorize police to abduct citizens without legal justification if this is done “under the peace officer’s official authority.”

Plucking a fish from a “publicly owned” pond without a license is considered an offense, despite the fact that entailed no violation of property rights. (If it did, who is the victim, and what injury did he sustain?) Violently abducting a human being who has done no harm to anyone, on the other hand, is regarded as a “lawful” act, assuming that the kidnapper is accoutered in the officially prescribed costume. 
Pankratz
To his credit, the victim was non-cooperative but non-violent. This wasn’t true of the assailants, of course. After Metcalf threatened to attack terTelgte with pepper spray, Pankratz kicked his legs out from beneath him. 

Rather than mounting a violent defense against his captors, terTelgte simply sat motionless on the ground, forcing them to pick him up and carry
him to the police car. 

During his arraignment before Three Forks Municipal Judge Wanda Drusch, terTelgte refused to defer to her authority or play his expected role as a penitent and submissive suspect. 

“I was searching for something to put in my stomach as I am … allowed to do by universal law,” he declared. “I am the living man and I have the right to forage for food when I am hungry.” 

The “trial” last November -- if the proceedings merit that description -- was attended by 32 police officers from ten agencies, brought together by shared concern that the defendant’s defiance might prove contagious. TerTelgte was denied the right—supposedly protected by the Constitution – to cross-examine witnesses or to introduce evidence on his own behalf. 

To the surprise of nobody, terTelgte was quickly found guilty of the supposed offense of obstructing the unwarranted harassment of armed state 
functionaries, and refusing to cooperate in his own abduction. Although his jail sentence was suspended, terTelgte later spent 30 days behind bars for “contempt” after he declined to take off his hat in the courtroom during a subsequent appearance on another charge of “resisting arrest.” 

TerTelgte is clearly eccentric; he might even be considered obnoxious by some. It is reasonable to conclude that his actions have been unwise, a violation of the principle that each of us has trouble enough and shouldn’t be seeking to borrow more. But he is patently harmless. There is no evidence that he has ever injured or defrauded anybody, which certainly can’t be said of the government functionaries who assaulted and caged him, or the criminal entity that employs them.

It is the zeal to prolong the pretense of the Regime’s legitimacy that led the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify terTelgte as a public enemy, an exponent of what that self-appointed Stasi calls “sovereign citizen ideology.”

Stated in its broadest terms, the “sovereign citizen” concept holds that some people can exempt themselves from the law through the use of esoteric legal concepts expressed in impenetrable language. From that perspective, people who utter or publish the appropriate conjurations can seize the property of others, issue fraudulent financial instruments, and employ lethal violence against those who seek to hold them accountable.

Assuming that this is an accurate description, at least some “sovereign citizens” are attempting to mimic the criminal behavior of those who presume to rule the rest of us. The SPLC and allied “watchdog” groups offer no objections to the routine practice of fraud and exercise of lethal aggressive violence by the most dangerous element of our society. They simply want to preserve that element’s monopoly on the privilege of committing criminal aggression.

This is why the SPLC professes alarm that outrage over the terTelgte case has prompted some Montana residents to create a citizens’ grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse and official misconduct. SPLC flack David Neiwert breathlessly – and perhaps hopefully – writes that this could lead to a rural “showdown” akin to the April 12 confrontation in Bunkerville, Nevada. 

William Wolf, who has organized efforts to create the citizens grand jury, has suggested that his group might arrest Rick West, the Justice of the Peace who sent terTelgte to jail for thirty days on a contempt charge. Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin described this as “unacceptable,” accusing Wolf and his allies of “crossing a line they can’t cross.”
“When there are threats like this, not only does it affect that person, it affects their family,” mewled Gootkin in a television interview. “For someone in the family to live in fear, that’s not the way things work. When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people … that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that.”

It’s appropriate that Gootkin uses the terms “arrest” and “kidnap” interchangeably, given that the latter is properly applied to what was done to terTelgte. The public record is barren of any recognition by Sheriff Gootkin that terTelgte’s abduction traumatized his eleven-year-old son and made him “live in fear.” Apparently the impact of violence on Mundanes and their children doesn’t concern the Sheriff. 

Gootkin also berated members of the proposed citizens’ grand jury for “bypassing” the criminal justice system. The real scandal here is the effective destruction of the grand jury, which was intended to be a citizens’ assembly rather than a government entity. 

From the Founding era until the early 20th Century, grand juries were bodies that could carry out independent investigations of official corruption and deliver “presentments” to prosecutors in search of redress. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots observes that the grand jury, “in its primal, plenary sense … was a group of men who stood as a check on government, often in direct opposition to the desires of those in power.” 

Writing in the Fordham Law Review, Kevin K. Washburn points out that the grand jury “came to us as an institution that was respected for its profound ability to protect local communities – indeed, possibly rebellious ones – from central government authority. It was, in essence, a local check on Crown authority.” In that capacity, grand juries not only conducted rigorous review of facts, but also “nullification of validly enacted laws,” Washburn continues.

During the reign of FDR, an executive branch Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure – an unaccountable body with no legislative mandate – imposed regulations intended to destroy the independence of grand juries. As a result, “the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor, who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury,” wrote federal District Judge William J. Campbell, who urged the formal abolition of the institution in the interests of efficiency.

Judge Campbell offered those observations in 1973. Since that time, the US criminal “justice” system has reached almost Soviet levels of prosecutorial efficiency. Under the reign of Josef Stalin, Soviet procurators were ordered to achieve a 100 conviction rate. In the current federal system, notes Lew Rockwell, the defendant “wins once every 212 times.”

Once the grand jury was re-purposed as an arm of the state, prosecutors were free to commit routine due process violations and destroy what remained of the institution of trial by jury. “Waiving the Criminal Justice System,” a study recently published by the University of Texas School of Law, describes how the adversarial process through which the state must prove the guilt of a defendant has been supplanted with a system of administrative law in which prosecutors extract plea bargains in exchange for relatively lenient sentences. This is why federal prosecutors win well more than ninety percent of their cases through plea bargains, rather than jury trials.

This is a lamentable state of affairs, and, to many observers, a familiar story. This study, however, breaks new ground by showing that prosecutors at both the state and federal levels require defendants to waive   due process rights that are vital for post-conviction appeals – such as the right to effective assistance of counsel, and the right to obtain exculpatory evidence that can be used to overturn a conviction or at least obtain a new trial.
The Montana Militia? No -- the Gallatin County SRT.
In the American tradition, the purpose of a trial was to establish the truth of an accusation against a defendant who is presumed to be innocent. The purpose of our post-constitutional criminal system is to ratify the defendant's guilt, irrespective of the facts or the law. 

This is not the doing of eccentrics and “extremists” like Ernie terTelgte, but rather of the respectable people who employ the exercise and the threat of violence to force others to submit to their will – and who can rely on the unconditional support of the SPLC and others of their contemptible ilk.

Roughly a week ago, while the SPLC was pretending that terTelgte and his supporters are a threat to the republic, the US Supreme Court put an end to the illusion that something worthy of being called a republic still exists, or that citizens have any reasonable expectation that, if accused of an offense, they have a right to a trial of some kind.

The High Court refused to hear an appeal filed by Chris Hedges and several other activists challenging a provision of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act under which the president can order the indefinite military detention – without trial or legal recourse -- of any U.S. citizen he regards as an enemy of the state. 
The SPLC is cool with this: SWAT training in Gallatin County.
That provision was struck down as unconstitutional by US District Judge Katherine Forrest, who ruled that it could lead to the seizure and imprisonment of people who exercised rights supposedly protected by the First Amendment. 

As is their habit, the executive branch’s legal minions greeted that ruling with an indifferent shrug and filed an appeal before a more complaisant federal judge, who ruled that no citizen has legal standing to challenge the NDAA. That ruling was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court.

As a result, summarizes progressive commentator Thom Hartman, the military “now has the power to label us terrorists, capture us, lock us up in jail, and hold us there without any regard for our Constitutional rights to due process or a fair trial.” That power very nicely compliments Obama’s routine practice of executing people without the benefit of trial – including at least one teenaged U.S. citizen.

Ernie terTeglte’s view of sovereignty is that he has a right to feed himself and be left alone. Barack Obama’s view of sovereignty is that of Vladimir Lenin – the supposed right of the Dear Leader to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.” Not surprisingly, the SPLC and its allies consider the first view unacceptable, and regard the second as mandatory.






Dum spiro, pugno!

26 comments:

rkshanny said...

I agree with Ernie's basic sentiments, but he needs to quickly wake up enough to stay out of the clutches of his "masters", before he finds himself 'disappeared' into the psycho-gulag. He's going to make it all too easy for 'them'. He, as well as the rest of us, are unfortunately 'owned'. Our controllers own and operate the 'system'. The sooner he stops playing right into their hands, the better. And, where I sorta understand the gist of his ranting sign, this kind of rambling is not going to do him any favors at all, neither with his 'rulers' nor with the general sheeple.

Anonymous said...

I agree with rkshanny - ol' Ernie's flawless legal case won't help him. Instead, his long beard, odd overcoat and incoherent sign mark him in the mind of the public as 'a crazy'.

If he was more PR astute, he'd ditch the sign, dress like an upper blue collar/lower-level exec and cultivate a respectable media presence. The goal should be to embarrass the bureaucracy and demonstrate to the people "this could happen to you too".

Anonymous said...

This writers understanding of civics, along with the man he writes about, are severely lacking.

Government is the entity that has achieved military dominance over a society and typically grants itself the ability to harm with legal impunity.

If the water is public property, then it belongs to the government. The government can make rules about its property.

The only way out of this mess is to permanently limit the power of the legislature. and establish independent courts.

Anonymous said...

All of this could have been avoided if he was armed at the time he was accosted by Adam Pankratz. When someone comes to take away your freedom, you use defensive force.

William N. Grigg said...

What you are describing is not a misunderstanding about the principles of civics, but the vast and perhaps unbridgeable gulf that separates genuinely civilized people from those who subscribe to statist superstition.

I understand, and have written a great deal about, the principle recognized by Augustine in the 5th Century -- namely, that a government is a robber band that has achieved territorial mastery and granted itself impunity. It is, in other words, the most successful aggressor.

I reject the proposition that aggression can be moral,or that we should pretend that successful aggression should be ratified. "Limiting" the supposed right to commit aggression is neither morally correct nor practical-- as the failure of the constitutional system demonstrates. (Remember how the Constitution "permanently" limited legislative power, and kept it separate from executive and judicial power? How did that arrangement work out?)


The only way out of our predicament is for people to stop validating aggression in any form.

Anonymous said...

The idea of Freedom from Government was what our country was founded on. The fact that you need a license to fish is is a perfect example of how government is nothing more than an impediment to freedom. Wait until the carbon tax scam is fully implemented and you need a license to breathe.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. Sort of like the federalist ratifiers swearing that federal courts would never rule on state laws - that was explicitly promised by the ratifiers, including a future Supreme Court justice who went back on his word and did exactly what he said the court would never do.

As long as the power of the state exists, it will be abused for more and more power. We should have listened to what Samuel told the Israelites and not adopted a secular king or its modern day variants.

Anonymous said...

Great article!

By the way, the infamous sheriff Brown in NC was blown out in a primary defeat by almost 30 points! Articles like yours on lew's site that generated 1.4 thousand "likes" from Facebook alone were a huge part of his defeat.

I think he would still be the sheriff after November if social media and non regime bloggers did not exist.

Gil said...

Once again: his only crime was committing a criminal offence. On the upside if the fellow ends up in prison his standard living will go up.

On the other hand, where did it say the U.S. was founded on anti-government values? Rather the nation was founded on the notion of home-grown government hence the new government was more onerous than the British Crown but that was fine because it was created and run by All-Americans.

Anonymous said...

Whatever leads a person to propose acceptance of the treatment of people like Ernie Wayne terTelgte as criminals - I won't eat or drink it.
(referring to rkshanny's comment)

That seems to me to be exactly what defines a sheeple.

Anybody with balls will be disrespected by the sheeple. It is shameful and slavish to accept the view that any man or woman should accept this kind of abuse.

What is the essence of freedom (liberty) but in the defiant heart of a free man and the intent to live in the most natural and happy way that is possible?

You can't buy a clue. It has to exist within you already.

Hats off to Ernie. rotten fruit and vegetables at the cops and tax-sucking parasites that arrested him. They should be covere in a smelly paste that identifies them as diseased and corrupt to anybody with normal senses.

nuff said.

My name is Richard.


Anonymous said...

This is the King's Pond/fish, you,knave! WHo do you think you are? You're a peasant!

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Grigg, you quote:

"As a result, summarizes progressive commentator Thom Hartman, the military now has the power to label us terrorists, capture us, lock us up in jail, and hold us there without any regard for our Constitutional rights to due process or a fair trial.”

It is not well known, but on 2-3 occasions already, the military Joint Chiefs Of Staff have let the President know privately that a certain order, such as attacking Iran or Syria, would be disobeyed. Yes, this would be mutiny, if the order was issued. On those occasions, the President has decided not to call their bluff, and has backed down. (I refer to BOTH Bush AND Obama. This has only happened since 9-11.)

The day may yet come when the military, under legal authority of the NDAA, provided to them by Congress, signed by the President, and ratified by the Supreme Court, might arrest and imprison any or all of the above, indefinitely, without trial, without recourse to legal counsel, and without even acknowledging who has been arrested or why... Quite legally.

Such might be the unintended consequences, when moronic psychopaths in Washington, with a grandiose and excessive sense of their own power and intelligence, pass laws which can be turned completely against them. These jackasses who lord it over us like kings and aristocrats whose fecal matter does not stink, may some day wake up to discover with astonishment that they have been trapped and destroyed by their own arrogance and hubris.

Haste then the day, when the faith shall be sight, and the clouds be rolled back as a scroll!
The trumpet shall sound, and true justice be served, on that day it shall comfort my soul.

(With apologies to Horatio G. Spafford.)

- LG

Leslie Fish said...

LG: We might be able to do something along those lines right now. Since the SCOTUS has declared that a corporation is a person, then any honest Law Enforcement Officer can arrest, jail and try one. Seriously! A corporation may be a "person" with its "body" spread out over half the world, but its "brain" consists of its officers -- the board of directors -- can be found in one small convenient spot every time it holds a meeting. So, next time a corporation commits murder, or "negligent homicide", send the cops in to arrest the lot of them, haul them off to jail, and try them as a single unit.

Once we've tried and found guilty and jailed one of them, it'll be legally easier to likewise arrest whole departments of government. See where this is going?

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Leslie,

Thanks. Your idea is not unique - there was a sign at Occupy Wall Street that said: "I'll believe coporations are people when the State of Texas executes one of them."

A nice observation on both corruptions - the wrongful application of the death penalty when the whole system knows the conviction was incorrect but the victim gets snuffed anyway, and the wrongful concept of corporations as "people."

Corporations have no conscience, no heart or kidneys, no blood flowing in their veins, and no motivation except predation on society, and on the rest of the ecosystem, and maximization of their own profit. This is the classic medical description of a psychopathic criminal - Hannibal Lecter in a three-piece suit.

"BP" did not kill 11 workers and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen in the Deepwater Horizon blowout - the executives of BP who made the decisions leading to the disaster did that. Punishing BP is merely punishing the pension funds and people who own its stock. Thom Hartman, whom Mr. Grigg quotes, has made a lifetime mission of pointing out this absurdity, but has gotten nowhere. The corporations give too much money to politicians, and the Supreme Court backs up these practices more and more.

Many people fear the military, because it has the firepower, and is supposedly directed by the psychopathic politicians, but the day will come, I am certain, when the military will be the salvation of this nation by overthrowing the present corrupt order and restoring the Constitution. Recall the events I mentioned above. It is the only arm of Government which is as yet not corrupted. (Not the military-industrial complex, but the military itself.) This is because psychopaths and thieves will not put themselves in a position where they might be shot at. So they do not join the military, and so far, it is the only moral agency of Government left in this country.

Few people know this either, but there is deep hatred between the military on one hand, and the CIA and State Department on the other. The Joint Chiefs have seen the destruction of the lives of thousands of their boys (and some girls) in the service of the evil agendas of those other agencies, and they are very, very unhappy about it.

Believe this or not as you will: Julian Assange was an agent of the US Military complex, and his purpose was to ruin the evil plans of the State Department and CIA. Do you really think he got ALL that information from the unfortunate Bradley/Chelsea Manning? Some, yes, but not all.

I firmly believe that the only thing which can save this country, and the world, is an insurrection backed up by the force of military arms. Let us hope such a thing does not come too late, after the psychopaths have manipulated us into a nuclear war with Russia.

(CONTINUED)...

Lemuel Gulliver said...

(CONTINUED)

Greed is stupid. Aesop wrote 2,500 years ago about the farmer that killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, in order to get more eggs faster, and thus got no more golden eggs.

Psychopathy is also stupid. Humanity has only progressed from the apes to where we have gotten now by co-operation and mutual assistance. Predatory psychopaths, like the greedy farmer, destroy the very social systems on which they prey and depend on for their existence, like viruses or diseases that kill their host.

The greedy psychopaths in our Government - the neocons, oligarchs, and their servants - sincerely believe that since the US has more and better nuclear weapons than Russia, that we can win a nuclear war with them. They have built vast underground complexes, where they figure they can hide for a year or two, then emerge to a new and glorious depopulated world, all available for them alone. They look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are today lived-in by millions of people, and figure they can do the same. This is insanity. Why?

Because, what they have not figured, which did not exist in 1945, is that there are 425 nuclear power stations in the world, and 72 more under construction (mostly in China.) 104 of them are in the USA. In the event of a nuclear war, the U.S. power grid would go down for 5-10 years at least, which means no more gasoline would be available.

Once the 104 nuclear power stations (if they were not directly targeted by Russia) ran out of diesel for their backup generators, they would begin to melt down, and you would have 104 Fukushimas going off in this country, emitting inconceivable amounts of radiation, which would poison the earth for the next 30,000 years, and kill every animal alive. Mass extinction. Unless the rulers are prepared to live underground for 5,000 - 20,000 years, they are doomed.

One H-bomb contains 30-50 kg of plutonium. One nuclear power station, and its pools of spent fuel rods, contains at least a thousand tons, or two or three, of over 200 massively radioactive isotopes, some of which, like plutonium, have a half-life of 24,500 years.

These are the madmen in charge of our country and the world.

And the American people worry about some racist owner of a football team, or some dancing contest for the stars, or some Hollywood star who divorced his fifth wife. Nobody wants to think about depressing things such as I have described. Try to tell them. They will turn away or change the subject. I wonder how many will read this far, of what I have written.

So when the Hammer of God falls on our heads, everyone will cry and wail and ask, "What happened?"

They will never know. As they breathe their last, they will rail at God and pray for forgiveness for them and their children and all the other life-forms on the planet. Let's hope someone will be listening.

- Lemuel Gulliver

Lemuel Gulliver said...

PS: Mr, Grigg, to do the math more explicitly for your readers.... The US and Russia have agreed to limit their nuclear warheads to about 1,500 bombs each, figuring that is plenty enough to completely destroy each others' country. If there was a nuclear war, and the US power stations all melted down, the fallout would be equivalent to some TWO MILLION H-bombs. As humanity elswhere on the planet died off, and the other 321 nuclear plants also melted down, the eventual fallout would be equivalent to some EIGHT MILLION H-bombs.

If anyone was around to make note of it, it would be interesting to see if even the cockroaches would survive.

And you think YOU have depressing news to tell the American people? If the madmen in Washington are not stopped, and soon, this planet is finished. The scientists tell us there are a few billion years left before the sun expands and swallows the Earth up, so perhaps there is time for life to evolve again.

If so, and if a dominant species arises again, let us hope it evolves with a modicum more intelligence than Homo "Sapiens."

- LG

Diaz Cruz said...

Lemuel mass extinction would be the nicest thing that could happen to us death ends all problems. But imagine if some do survive will they help other rebuild? reality and fiction point no.

it will survival of the fittest then i hope sincerely that he leaders survive to feel that era where there influence and money means absolutely jack shit

Paul Bonneau said...

"Plucking a fish from a “publicly owned” pond without a license is considered an offense"

If I'm not mistaken, Montana statutes actually contain a provision allowing a person to take a deer without a license or tag, provided it is done by someone who is somehow destitute and for putting meat on the table. I heard that anyway; haven't seen it though.

Patrick Henry said...

Lemuel Gulliver ...The military is the only decent agency of government?..... They are murderous ignoramuses, killing the innocent overseas and helping in New Orleans to rob Americans of their protection from looters, for corporate profit and the bank accounts of a few rich billionaires..... I know, I was one of them for 17 years, till I awoke and said I cannot do this....this is wrong.....and quit outright.....I hope this was sarcasm?

Anonymous said...

They have laid claim to us through their documents and trickery of language, yet we still fail to claim the name of Jesus the Christ, whose blood payed our dept to the king if this world, rendering us LAWLESS. Jesus was the very first Anarchist, in promotion of self governance and God internal as judge and jury. So why do we refuse the sacrifice? Because we don't believe nor understand truly. Even the word "Christ" is in ALL dictionaries as "savior".

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Patrick Henry,

You said it exactly. The military, under the Constitution, is directed by psychopathic civilians who would never in a million years go near a battlefield. Or let their children do so. THAT is the source of the corruption and evil filth that you saw in your service. As yet, the military serves the psychopaths, and yes, the troops are trained to be psychopaths. (Especially the Special Forces, whom I would omit from my characterization of the military as "moral." The SF men are selected for their viciousness, and mind-programmed to ask no questions and to be mere killing robots.)

But why are more veterans killing themselves than died in the obscene and illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? (I believe it is some 20 suicides each and every day - nobody is counting, so the number is hard to verify.) Because they are basically good men who have been forced to do things that make their lives unbearable. The few individuals who enjoyed it, and are happy with what they did, return home and become American "law enforcement officers," in jobs where they can continue to abuse people and kill them at will, with immunity from prosecution for murder. Their atrocities against the American people are Mr. Grigg's stock-in-trade for these essays he writes to infuriate us.

Please go up and re-read what I said about the Joint Chiefs. These are men, unlike the appointed heads of every other agency of government, who have worked their way up from the ranks, or from West Point or Annapolis. They know what they and their troops are being asked to do, and how evil it is. They have threatened mutiny, if they should be pushed too far by the psychopaths.

No country has attacked this nation since Pearl Harbor, (and that itself was a put-up affair,) yet we have attacked and destroyed countless helpless nations which refused to give up their natural resources to American corporations. How many American soldiers and helpless civilians in those nations have died to enrich the oligarchs and bankers? It is uncountable.

So no, what I said was not a joke. If you could speak to some (not all, to be sure) of the generals in the Pentagon, you would know that they are decent, honorable men. They keep their mouths shut, because speaking out against the civilian crazies is a ticket to early retirement at a minimal pay-grade.

- Lemuel Gulliver.

PS: Re. my Pearl Harbor assertion above: 9-11 was not an attack on America by another country. Believe it or not, but it was a political coup originated and organized right here at home. On THREE occasions prior to 9-11, the Taliban offered to arrest Bin Laden and hand him over to the US, but their offers were ignored. Why? Because the 9-11 operation had to go forward, in order to establish the police state we see presently developing around us. There are 24 or so members of the (Sunni) Bin Laden family hiding in Tehran under the protection of (Shiite) Iran, afraid to leave the country. Why? They know too much about 9-11, and would be killed by the USA if they opened their mouths in Iran, or went abroad where they could interact with Westerners.

Why did you think they rounded up every Bin Laden in America on 9-12-2001 and flew them all out of the country in such a hurry, when every single other plane in the sky was grounded, even the one which was supposed to fly Pentagon brass back from California, and the plane carrying King Abdullah of Jordan, which was turned back over the Atlantic? Explain for me please?

You, and 99% of the public, has no concept, and cannot even imagine, how evil the rulers of this country are, (and I am not talking about the 535 jackasses emitting hot gas up on Capitol Hill.) A billion deaths would not cause them to lose a second of sleep at night.

- LG

InalienableWrights said...

Amazing that the search box here can not find the article "NEVER Let Your Kids Talk to the Police" nor is it listed under that date as posted on Lew Rockewell.

I do not want to post the LR version because it always looks so bad as compared to here...

Thanks for your time Will

William N. Grigg said...

Thank you, I.W. The piece you refer to wasn't originally published here; I actually wrote it for Lew Rockwell's blog last week.

Anonymous said...

This note regards the author's assertion:

"Ernie Wayne terTelgte is a poor man from a tiny village in Montana who believes that nature gives him a license to live."

Said assertion demonstrates a profound confusion regarding the English language. I would assert the author's first language is not English for this reason: a license is simply permission to do or not do that which is illegal. Nature is not a legal concept nor is life. Life is not illegal. Life is a right. Therefore, it is nonsensical to assert that life has anything to do with license.

William N. Grigg said...

The term "license" derives from a Latin term that means, simply, "liberty."

Mr. telTelgte assumes that in a state of nature he is free to do whatever doesn't injure another human being. His physical existence is not contingent on permission from anybody else -- or what we would commonly call a "license."

On the subject of confusion: How can someone receive, and why would anybody have to seek, "permission ... not to do that which is illegal"? Are we required to do that which is illegal, unless we're given permission not to break the law? And if we obtain permission "to do that which is illegal," doesn't this mean the act in question is legal?


Anonymous said...

I have not read every comment here, so I am not an authority, but I do feel that a fishing license is for the benefit of all. The license limits over killing of fish or game and identifies who is hunting or fishing . I don't have any comments on whether the US government as of lately is right or wrong, ( maybe a little of both ) Just the fact we can read about this mountain man is some proof we can at least say what we want.