More propaganda targetting the sovereignty movement

abcnews.go.com...

This is yet another attempt to portray members of the sovereignty movement as domestic terrorists.

The American government is eventually going to have to accept the fact that it is now widely known, that the only basis of its' authority is a monopoly on violence. No national government, anywhere on this planet, has legitimate authority over its' citizens that is derived from anything other than physical force.



More and more people are waking up, and the truth can no longer be denied. Governments everywhere are eventually going to be faced with two choices; they can either murder the lot of us, or they can learn to co-exist with people who are aware of the reality that they are illegitimate.

Right off the bat here you go.

According to a new study released Wednesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of so-called hate or anti-government groups grew last year in the United States, fueled by a deeply felt socio-economic clash between the wealthy and the rest of the country, hostility from the right toward President Obama as he prepares to run for re-election, and the ease of the Internet to spread information.

Lump them in with hate groups, so you can call them domestic terrorists. Awesome slant there.

"I don't live in the United States. I live in the nation of Alabama," Barber said.

Standard SOP, find the biggest idiot you can to portray the movement in a very negative light. Please don't find someone who can intelligently articulate themselves. That would be against the media's interests.

Sovereign citizens are just jealous of our freedom, democracy, and liberty because they don't have any, that's why they resort to terrorism. It's so obvious, anyone in his or her right mind who hates America hates it because he/she doesn't have any freedom, democracy, or liberty. I think we need to invade Sovereign America and liberate it, as well as frack the hell out of it.

LOL

Somebody's (ABC) out of touch with what's whispered among REAL Americans.

The sovereignty movement is just a bunch of mentally handicapped pseudo-intellectuals that just want to come up with fancy ways of saying "the law does not apply to me". Show me one single case where the "sovereign citizen" defense worked.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
The sovereignty movement is just a bunch of mentally handicapped pseudo-intellectuals that just want to come up with fancy ways of saying "the law does not apply to me". Show me one single case where the "sovereign citizen" defense worked.

Watch the film Ungrip that I linked to in the OP, and you'll see two.

Here's a question for you, though. Can you define the basis of government's authority?

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by DavidWillts
The sovereignty movement is just a bunch of mentally handicapped pseudo-intellectuals that just want to come up with fancy ways of saying "the law does not apply to me". Show me one single case where the "sovereign citizen" defense worked.

Here's a question for you, though. Can you define the basis of government's authority?

The constitution

Originally posted by DavidWillts
The sovereignty movement is just a bunch of mentally handicapped pseudo-intellectuals that just want to come up with fancy ways of saying "the law does not apply to me". Show me one single case where the "sovereign citizen" defense worked.

I think it's safe to say that there are some idiots out there who make unfounded claims that only Constitutional law applies to them. When in fact a lot of those individuals would be the first to complain if they got into an accident with someone without insurance. Point is, there are statutes put in place that do protect citizens and their property. If you walk into a courtroom and try to pull some sovereign citizen crap 9 times out of 10 they're just going to laugh their #$$ off. It is a misguided angle and I would have to agree with youWhat is missed though is that, the Federal Government is calling an estimated 300,000 citizens a threat. Citing only a couple of isolated incidents they are claiming that a big part of the population is a violent threat. This is only solidified by the FBI claiming that it is their number one priority. It comes across as setting a foundation to wage war against its own people. As a government you have some issues if you have to fear a big portion of your own people.

reply to post by GD21D

I think it's safe to say that there are some idiots out there who make unfounded claims that only Constitutional law applies to them.

And since this is what all sovereign citizens say and this idea is really the basis for the sovereign citizen movement, it would be safe to say that the sovereign citizen movement is just a bunch of idiots.

Citing only a couple of isolated incidents they are claiming that a big part of the population is a violent threat. This is only solidified by the FBI claiming that it is their number one priority. It comes across as setting a foundation to wage war against its own people. As a government you have some issues if you have to fear a big portion of your own people.

How many "innocent" sovereign citizens have been rounded up by the FBI or other agency for no other reason besides being affiliated with the sovereign citizen movement? The sovereign citizens are a threat, to themselves mostly.

I honestly believe in the original constitution. It's the thousand other different "Acts" put in place to null and void the original...that's what erks me.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by DavidWillts
The sovereignty movement is just a bunch of mentally handicapped pseudo-intellectuals that just want to come up with fancy ways of saying "the law does not apply to me". Show me one single case where the "sovereign citizen" defense worked.

Here's a question for you, though. Can you define the basis of government's authority?

The constitution

Ok. Let's keep going back from there. What is the basis of the Constitution's authority?

Originally posted by petrus4
Ok. Let's keep going back from there. What is the basis of the Constitution's authority?

The magna carta, lol. An agreement between the king and moderately rich people so their heads wouldn't end up in a bucket.

Look it up, but I suppose the answer you wanted was "god" huh? Not trying to refute you though sorry, just figured I would inject that little tid bit. I don't know what's up with the other guy, I suppose he believes that law is perfect no matter who it oppresses, which is laughable. I'd bet a nickel hes a prison guard or a drug enforcement officer.

The sovereign citizens movement is based on the Constitution. It is not to state that anybody is above the law the Constitution is the law. The United States of America is a Corporation.

A sovereign citizen, are not necessarily these people in the ABC show. They are people who have legally claimed sovereignty from the United States Corporation. Police officers have fits when they come across a sovereign citizen that has gone through the motions, because in the end, they are not able to enforce the will of the corporation on a sovereign citizen, wether a simple traffic violation or a matter of them making their own license plates, not having a drivers license. Every citizen in this land has a right to transportation, it is in our constitution.

The constitution trumps the corporation.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by GD21D

 

I think it's safe to say that there are some idiots out there who make unfounded claims that only Constitutional law applies to them.

And since this is what all sovereign citizens say and this idea is really the basis for the sovereign citizen movement, it would be safe to say that the sovereign citizen movement is just a bunch of idiots.

Who's to say that everyone in the movement goes by these ideals? You? The media? That's painting with a pretty broad brush wouldn't you say? Are you saying that all of the estimated 300,000 people are idiots? Uneducated? Extremists? Part of hate groups? Racist? Terrorists? Where does it end? Is it ok for the Federal Government to kill these people now since they're considered enemies of the state in so many words?

reply to post by GD21D

Who's to say that everyone in the movement goes by these ideals? You? The media? That's painting with a pretty broad brush wouldn't you say?

No, not really you said.

I think it's safe to say that there are some idiots out there who make unfounded claims that only Constitutional law applies to them.

The entire basis of the sovereign citizen movement is that very idea that only constitutional law applies to them, so by YOUR logic they are all idiots. I do not think you know what the sovereign citizen movement really is. You argument is the exact same thing as saying "im sure there are a couple of vegans that don't eat meat".

Are you saying that all of the estimated 300,000 people are idiots?

Yes

The entire basis of the sovereign citizen movement is that very idea that only constitutional law applies to them, so by YOUR logic they are all idiots. I do not think you know what the sovereign citizen movement really is. You argument is the exact same thing as saying "im sure there are a couple of vegans that don't eat meat".

No, by my logic some of them are idiots. My perception is that they are misguided in what they are trying to say and represent. It's easy to cherry pick and find someone whom doesn't understand the message they are trying to convey. The real basis of the movement is from the idea that the Federal Government has overstepped their bounds and disregarded the very document of law that gives them the authority to operate. In essence the Constitution gets in the way of what they want to do so they're going trivialize the meaning of it. Just as these so called sovereign citizens say that the law does apply to them, so does the Federal Government say that the Constitution does not apply to them.Of course this is just my perception and I could very well be wrong. It's not sovereign citizens I worry about, never once have I woke up in the morning feeling my life threatened by sovereign citizens. I do however worry about government that may be willing to wage war against it's own citizens because they don't agree with the policies being put in place. I am concerned with a government that decides that a document put in place to limit them is no longer relevant. This is how tyranny begins. I wonder if the founding fathers were viewed in the same light by King George III?

reply to post by GD21D

Of course this is just my perception and I could very well be wrong.

That explains it, you are arguing for a group that you don't even really know about. Read up and come back latter.

See the problem with this whole post is it began as an oxymoron, sovereign citizen is an opposing statement. You can be a sovereign or you can be a federal citizen which is not sovereign but you can not be both.

The use of "liberty" to describe the physical "ability to do what I want", the power to satisfy our wishes, or the extent of the choice of alternatives open to us ... has been deliberately fostered as part of the socialist argument ... the notion of collective power over circumstances has been substituted for that of individual liberty

But in all honesty, the questions really shouldn't be about so called sovereins or the lack there of but in fact should be centered on WHY the extreme rise of such groups? Why now? What has brought about the apparent dissatisfaction bordering on lunacy in such a large portion of America? focusing on the symptom is fine, " i guess " What i feel is of greater interest is, " the cause "

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by petrus4
Ok. Let's keep going back from there. What is the basis of the Constitution's authority?

The magna carta, lol. An agreement between the king and moderately rich people so their heads wouldn't end up in a bucket.

Look it up, but I suppose the answer you wanted was "god" huh?

No, it wasn't. God isn't something we can talk about empirically.

So are you willing to say, then, that the two things which the Constitution and the Magna Carta have in common, is that they are agreements?