No Longer Counting Coup

This post was shared with the CopBlock Network by Darryl E Berry Jr, aka Cezyl, via the Submissions Page.

Counting coup is a term referring to winning prestige in battle, coined by the Indians of North America. Considered acts of bravery included touching an enemy warrior, or stealing their horse or weapons from their camp, and escaping unharmed. There had to be a legitimate risk of injury or death as a prerequisite. To escape unharmed would seal the requirements of counting coup.(1)

I think the practice of purposely going through roadblocks or initiating interactions with the police for the purpose of exciting them, or recording them for recording’s sake, is a part of this idea; though I am not talking about recording for your own safety or someone else’s safety if it happens that a police encounter occurs. I think we should all be ready to protect and defend ourselves from law enforcement. But we don’t need to fight against them, or be the aggressor against them; all we have to do is simply leave them behind. I will explain; let me lay the foundation first. I’m open to your feedback or clarification on the matter, as well as hearing your perceptions.

For instance, people walking around aimlessly with rifles, knowing they will get calls on them made to the police, knowing they will be sequestered, and questioned, all the while recording it; or people purposely going through roadblocks to record “standing up for their rights.” I don’t feel enthusiastic about these ideas. In fact, I think they may be more detrimental to our freedom and liberty than beneficial. You could just carry concealed for self-defense, or carry your rifle as you go to the shooting range. Videos I see of people walking aimlessly with a rifle just to be doing so seems pointless to me. Being a nuisance just gets people in an uproar, and cultivates the unjustified and government-manufactured fear that causes them to call the police upon you for doing what they see police do all the time. I have seen video where police get called on people who just had a handgun open-carry on their hip.

The person walking around aimlessly with two rifles cultivates the fear that has people call the police on a person walking around with a handgun open carrying on their hip, just as the police walk open carrying with a handgun on their hip. But I have seen a video where a man, who was apparently concealed carrying, stopped a lady from getting robbed. The person walking around concealed carrying that helps a person in need, in my opinion, helps 1,000 times more than the person aimlessly walking around being a nuisance. Now I have seen a video where someone was walking purposefully, perhaps from the shooting range or from hunting, with a rifle, and people in the neighborhood called the police on him. If I remember right, he happened to be recording video with his son, and had his son record the interaction. The point could be made that the person aimlessly walking around open carrying with a rifle can help bring exposure and normalcy to the activity, and thus help people like him who are walking purposively to not have the police called on them. Of the concealed carrier who helps, the perception I have is: “Respect, respect.” Of the aimless nuisance, the perception I have is: “Why, Why?”

I believe that trying to reform the “government,” the “police,” the system in any way, shape, or form, is a lost cause. People think that the police work for us but I do not think that is true – the evidence shows that is not true. I think ideally they would work for us, and it seems that they are supposed to work for us, but the fact is if they are pulling you over unjustly, illegally, unconstitutionally, they are clearly NOT working for you. If they are examining your vehicle trying to find something wrong to charge you with or arrest you for, or they pull you over and cite you to extort money from you when you’re driving safely and not hurting anyone, but over the arbitrary number officials have pasted up on a sign, they are NOT working for you. If they can do anything to you or anyone else that you “cannot” do to them under the same circumstances, they do NOT work for you.

What if we set up a roadblock to see if policemen are doing something illegal? I do not see that going well. We would be charged with all kinds of crimes, I’m sure: holding up or interfering with traffic, assault, resisting arrest, and anything else they could think of, I’m sure. I actually saw a video as a matter of fact where people went up to a police car and were asking them all the interrogation questions they ask us: “Have you been drinking? What are you doing here? I smell alcohol on your breath, etc.” The cop boisterously got out of the car and everyone backed up, and the cop was talking of arresting them.(2) They continued talking from afar and the cops left – and I suppose that would count as counting coup. If we were to literally police the policemen and other people in government, and forcibly enforce that policing, they would all have to shut down as so many of them would be in jail – not only those who commit crimes, but also all the others who watch or do nothing to prevent or intervene or capture those that do. All are equally breaking their oath. It seems fitting that they should have one charge for each crime, and another for breaking their oath.

It could be just fear on my part, but even so, I don’t see that more good, or enough good, might come over potential bad from counting coup with the police, or the government, or any perceived authority. The key is to recognize that they are not really authority. These people have over us only the power that we defer to them. At least now, it’s often quite practical to defer to them, when for instance you’re outnumbered by seven armed thugs who are violating your rights. But ultimately it is not about immediate safety – the endeavor of counting coup against them itself says they have the power. Counting coup would not be valid against an impotent or invalid opponent. Psychologically we still believe that these people truly have power over us, that we have some moral obligation to follow them and submit ourselves to them, even though we know they lie, and cheat, and steal, and connive, and are corrupt. Of course not ALL of them, but most of them are implementing and enforcing the corruption, whether actively involved or passively watching or simply not looking, and extremely few of them are countering or impeding unjust enforcement. I only know of three instances where law enforcement enforced the law against other law enforcement officers. All of them experienced deleterious effects to their lives and livelihood at the hands of other officers.

There is the state cop who arrested a local cop for doing 120 mph down the interstate, heading to his off-duty job; he was weaving between cars, speeding down a busy interstate,  endangering his own life as well as the lives of everyone nearby him. Even with her chasing with police lights blaring, it took seven minutes for him to stop. In response, she received mass harassment from police officers, including random telephone calls of Frank’s and threats, pizza orders, unfamiliar with the locals and police cars sitting idling in her cul-de-sac. She found that eighty-eight law enforcement officers from twenty-five different agencies used their systems to access her information, utilizing the systems they are supposed to use in their duties, to track her down, harass her, and vandalize her property, to the point that she filed a lawsuit.(3)

There is a border patrol officer who spoke up about the unconstitutional treatment citizens were receiving at the hands of his fellow officers. He was demoted, his locker at work was broken into, and he is now banned from doing border patrol while the officers who were breaking the law and infringing upon rights in doing so remain there and continue to do so.(4)

And more recently in the news, there is an interim police chief who, before he was promoted, was relatively engaging in an inappropriate sexual behavior, including searching through the cell phones of under age sexual abuse victims for sexual photos with no warrant or legal reason to do so. He would also make sexual comments to females he would come across while on the job. When a detective could get no recourse to his actions within this department, he brought it up to the mayor in a department review. Rather than addressing the issue, the officer was promoted to police chief and the detective was accused of stealing and put on leave. Now the officer is bringing a case against the interim police chief and the mayor. 10)

I know in my heart that roadblocks are not right; a similar sentiment shared by a woman who experienced officers trying to coerce her to give samples of her DNA.(11) I remember how it felt when I experienced my first roadblock back in New Orleans, Louisiana, over 10 years ago. It is clear to me that they are unconstitutional – and whatever legal jargon and justifications and rationalizations they use, stopping and questioning everyone going down the road for whatever reason is not reasonable. These are the same people that thought it reasonable to force people out of their homes at gunpoint in a search for one person.(5) If the people officially in authority truly believed in liberty, they would be encouraging EVERYONE to be armed, and to practice and train at shooting, and then if ever a lone or duo crazed lunatic is running free or trying to shoot up a school or theater, they would have no chance. Those officially in authority could simply alert us to be aware of the maniac on the loose, and everyone could be locked, loaded, and ready. Or if someone just started randomly shooting, they could have 30 bullets in them by the time they shot the second person. I’m sure this would greatly discourage mass shootings.

With all they did to infringe upon the rights of all those people when they were searching for that suspect, the authorities did not find the guy anyway. If I remember right, a person found him in his backyard, hiding in a boat. These are the same people who erroneously believe that forcibly confiscating weapons from people who are in a state of emergency is a reasonable thing to do, while during that time other policeman are raping and looting people.(6) Not only is disarming people clearly unconstitutional, and plainly the wrong, and a bad idea at ANY time, but doing so is doubly destructive when people are most in need of their weapons; when others including policemen are running around looting and raping and killing (and again, military and police were disarming people, and policemen were among the looters and those raping people). Perhaps it was a dry run to see if their training at disarming people was sufficient; perhaps it was on-the-job training in preparation for a larger scale confiscation.

I have talked to a lawyer about “roadblocks.” The courts say they are legal for the police to do – as long as they uphold various criteria, like signs and lights at this or that distance away, a specific purpose and parameter for the stop and check, etc; and sometimes they don’t even hold to that. We may know that roadblocks are unconstitutional, but apparently the people who the Constitution was meant to limit have themselves decided that they will interpret their own limits, which of course circumvents the purpose of the Constitution and the limits entirely! I don’t believe these people care about the law and the Constitution; except insofar as they can use them to tyrannize us with. I believe that being out there counting coup against them does draw attention to the issues of unconstitutionality and tyranny. But we can bring attention to the issue simply by going directly to the people and educating everyone, and being ready to record the many and escalating infractions occurring in our normal comings and goings. The colonists would never have let it get THIS far.

A court case has just gone through establishing that it is legal to film the cops doing their duties.(7a) And I agree it is important to do so, as recordings of police have been the only thing to stop some people from getting charged with assault when the police assaulted them.(7b) And even with situations like this going on, some officers are wanting us to not be able to record them! But I wonder if the time counting coup in whatever way might be better spent going on a flyer hand out, away from the DUI stops, and other areas where we know we would get harassed by the police though we are not harming anyone, and instead spend that time educating people of their rights – and not “constitutional” rights, but our natural and inalienable sovereign rights, as living sentient beings. The Constitution does not give us rights; it is supposed to remind us of and remind the officials of the rights we inherently have. If you read the second amendment, as the lawyer explained to me, rather than “giving” the right to bear arms it actually tells “government” that it will not infringe upon that pre-existing inherent right.

We don’t need permission to be free from any governmental authority, who anyway are a group of liars, murderers, extortionists, and thieves – who themselves, on up to presidents and prime ministers, are simply pawns under the puppet strings of liars, murderers, extortionists, and thieves. We don’t need scribbles on a piece of paper to have the right to defend ourselves, or to freely travel unmolested, or to keep the fruits of our labor. What is happening now is that we are divided, so though as a whole we outnumber the tyrants and their enforcers thousands and thousands to one, the few of them gang up on a handful of us, and they are piecemeal using force to subjugate the many. If enough people become aware, we could simply walk away from this oppressive system and let it die. I don’t think it does anyone any good for anyone who is courageous enough and aware of enough to be working for the cause of freedom to be locked up or killed, especially for going out of their way just to get video of something we get enough video of just by having a camera on the ready in the normal course of our and our neighbors’ living. A case of course can be made for having people on standby to record roadblocks for instance, for the safety of the people going through those roadblocks. But I think the attitude, the drive, in such an endeavor is different from counting coup, from seeking to the point of facilitating something controversy worthy to record.

Basically I have given up all respect for government and police and any authority system. As far as I’m concerned, given for instance that they don’t even follow the very laws they pass and take oaths to protect, they are not government officials nor police officers – if they ever were. And the term “peace officer” is laughable today. They are taking advantage of people’s lingering belief in a way of life that has already died. Truly I think it’s damaging to us at this point to continue to speak of constitutional rights when it is clear that those in official power and in official authority are violating and seeking further violation of those constitutional rights every day. Those in official power and authority in this country do not care about our rights.

What could be more precise for some is that they care more about following the commands of their masters (their bosses, or sources of funding), who ultimately though a highly compartmentalized chain of command all take orders from a tiny group of the world’s wealthiest people who are in fact seeking world domination and are manipulating the world in that direction. These people in ultimate control within this system manipulate wars with false flag operations, killing thousands of people just during the false flag, and then tens of thousands more in falsely “justified” war, just to consolidate more power or implement more draconian laws like the PATRIOT Act or the NDAA. What more proof do we need that these people don’t care about us, or laws, our rights, our safety, or anything but their own power and control?

I think it’s more practical for us to get into a pre-constitutional state of mind, where we recognize our natural right to be free and sovereign, and our natural right to protect and defend ourselves and others from whatever aggressor is attacking us. If we did this in unison it will not matter what document was there or not. We could simply live our lives freely as we please; no money, no laws, no rules, except to not enact aggression on anyone and to help anyone who is being assaulted, which is simply the law already written upon everyone’s hearts. And if remnants of the old way come to harass us, to again try to force their way of doing things upon, or to again try to rob us of the fruits of our labor, to again try to destroy and subjugate our sovereign way of life because it does not feed their tyrannous machine, we can have the numbers and the force to stop them or kill them. And then the old way simply falls away.

People speak of the ability to maintain ourselves without some kind of governmental system, but in fact this governmental system is holding back the flourishing of humanity and the planet as a whole. Since the last 50 to 100 years we could have free energy devices – pollution free sources of unlimited energy, but the tyrannical machine requires limited and controllable energy supplies in order to maintain control over us and has aggressively subverted these technologies; even though our current system is destroying the planet that they themselves live on as well!(12) These people are insane. The belief in government and authority is the belief that we need to subject ourselves to the whims of insane, deceitful, destructive, megalomaniacal, murderous people in order to be safe. We believe we need some governmental authority to protect us from the bad people in the world who would harm us, so then we take a few of these bad people who would harm us and give them the power to harm everyone with impunity. And they do so. This is insane on our part.(13)

Pieces of paper however noble the ideas inscribed upon them can be ignored, or other “laws” and “acts” can be written over them – whether it is legal or not to do so this has happened, and is happening, right now. But as Larken Rose points out the US Constitution really failed from the start because it seemingly gave certain people the power and authority to do things that others could not. And here we are again with a Constitution wrought from one break from tyranny, and yet we’re in another tyrannous situation even worse than the colonists were centuries ago. Until we simply accept and acknowledge our natural right to be free, irrespective and beyond ANY worldly authority’s ability to grant or rescind, until we cease believing that ANY form of government can provide us safety, we will end up in the same scenario again and again.(8)

Really it’s not up to “them” whether we are free or not; it is up to us whether we are free or not; so I see no need to make it seem like it is productive spending time competing against those in official authority, going out of our way to give them attention, to purposely go through their unconstitutional roadblocks to record them, etc, counting coup against them. To me that says: “You have the power, and we’re showing you that we disagree with what you are doing. Please stop.” If they cared they would not be overstepping constitutional rights in the first place. And in the end and we’re not willing to stop them they would simply do whatever they want to do regardless of what laws are there are not. Check out Larken Rose’s experiences when he found out in their own tax code that the US federal income tax does not refer to any of our income, and they simply ignored their own rules and jailed him for a year.(14) So I think it is time enough to discontinue speaking of “constitutional rights,” and to get back to the natural, inherent rights that the US Constitution was meant to refer to and symbolize. Let us simply unite and stand together and be free, and resist, even with lethal force, anyone who would infringe upon our freedom. We don’t need a document. We don’t need a vote. We don’t need a petition. All we need is to unite and stand up for ourselves. And we do as a whole need to unite, because relatively small groups who express their freedom are overrun – don’t heed still lies they told us about the situations.(15)

I feel that if enough people are educated and learned, rather than a few of us taking pictures and speaking of “constitutional rights” at unconstitutional roadblocks, and getting arrested or beaten in the process, the entire street of cars of people could simply not cooperate at all; and the first person any “officials” attempt to forcibly dominate would spark an army of us streaming from our cars to subdue the aggressors in gang uniforms; with thousands more, millions more, waiting and watching and at the ready in case we need backup.

The problem is our thinking. We would have no problem defending ourselves against “official” aggressors if we recognized we own ourselves. The state does not own us. Those manipulative, conniving people who made up a fictitious thing called “money” and then manipulated themselves to have a lot of it in order to control the rest of the population do not own us. We can simply walk away from these worthless things, limiting ways of thinking, and destructive systems. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying something like: “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” I suggest you read The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose, to help develop a different way of thinking about these issues.(9)


  7. a- ; b- Basically what happened is a female relative living with this guy, she asked for a police escort as she moved her things to a different location. When the man came back to his home the policeman started to harass, question him as he entered his own home, while the police would not tell him why they were there. He was assaulted and then was charged with assault – I’m sure resisting arrest was thrown in there. But again the video vindicated him, and the policeman was charged with assault. If you have a link to an article of this incident please refer to me.
  8. “It Can’t Happen Here!” by Larken Rose:
  15. Waco: and; a small religious community: and;


  1. Started out good. Ended like an idiot. Sovereign Citizens and the Constitution don’t mix in anyway.
    What fractured thinking

    1. You think this guy is a sovereign citizen?
      1. What is a sovereign citizen?
      2. What in the world makes you think this guy is one?
      3. Do you have a clue what you are talking about?

      The sovereign citizen boogie man is back!!! He’s everywhere!

      1. They guy used the phrase “natural rights” and the word “sovereign”. In the 1770s they meant something entirely different. /sarc

    2. You may want to read a bit more closely “t.” I’ll quote myself from the article for you:

      “… instead spend that time educating people of their rights – and not “constitutional” rights, but our natural and inalienable sovereign rights, as living sentient beings. The Constitution does not give us rights; it is supposed to remind us of and remind the officials of the rights we inherently have.”

      “I think it is time enough to discontinue speaking of “constitutional rights,” and to get back to the natural, inherent rights that the US Constitution was meant to refer to and symbolize. Let us simply unite and stand together and be free, and resist, even with lethal force, anyone who would infringe upon our freedom.”

      1. You could just move there, its called Aleppo.

      2. “The Constitution does not give us rights; it is supposed to remind us of
        and remind the officials of the rights we inherently have.” Well that was the argument in the 18th Century, and that pesky Constitution was actually based on that concept, but time does erode all things.

          1. Does pipe-dream ring a bell? So how would you keep the sociopaths away from the authoritarians in order to have no rulers? Authoritarians not only need rules for themselves (which they break as necessary) but want the same rules for everyone else (who should not break those rules). Sociopaths play authoritarians like Heifetz played the violin.

            Never ignore real human behavior in order to make a society. You can’t acheive that “New Communist Man” or “New Voluntaryist Man” (I’m not calling the two the same or accusing you of being a totalitarian or even statist), hell it’s hard enough keeping a flawed social democracy or flawed Constitutional Republic from sinking into an authoritarian mess.

  2. More sovereign nation BS. The problem is there is no organization with these activists. They all go off and do their own thing but claim to be part of something bigger. That proves why activists haven’t been as successful as they like to think they are.

    1. The above poster, or poser, is Paul Wayne Bowman formally from Keene NH. His last known town of residence was Winter Haven FL where he runs an outfit called No Excuses Ladies Boot camp. He has been a troll over 15 years going by the names JC, Jason Free123, Slappy, runningwolfkenpo and a few others. Fucking moron….

      1. That is funny. Why don’t you prove it. You make ridiculous accusations but you have never proven them. You are the one who was making death threats on copblock. It would appear you are the only fucking moron.

      1. Wow, what an argument. If you can’t prove your rants then you obviously have no credibility with your “article”.

  3. This was a very disappointing article for having altogether failed to link the counting of coups and stealing of possessions to the unlawful searches, seizures and assaults by police officers on civilians,

    1. Hey BobGod Taylor,

      The “counting of coups” is referring to us, when we purposely try to make a situation like purposely going through roadblocks to film, or purposely walking around with large guns so the cops can be called and we can say we’re legal and under our rights. I’m referring to our actions, not those in official authority, when referring to counting coup. I’m saying instead of us doing things like this, and believing they have the power and so we need to prod them, we can use that energy to educate others and to work together and simply stop participating in this rigged system altogether. The tyrant with no slaves is no longer a tyrant. If enough of us unite we can simply stop participating in their rigged system and make parallel systems of our own, until this old rigged systems simply dies away.

  4. This was an excellent summary of many of the ideas that are coming together in the mass consciousness of a large of the public. There are so many great points being made and skillfully connected, this should be required reading for anyone who is exploring the idea of Voluntarism.

    I particularly like the phrase, “…what is already written on our hearts.” This is the essence of what will make us free from oppression in the long run, a return to humanity from the dark place we’ve been, as you have said.

    Very enjoyable! =)

  5. And now for something not completely different: “…rights aren’t ‘rights’ if someone can take ‘em away; they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country: a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. “

    1. Hey Raymond, thanks for replying.

      Let me point out that your statement is inaccurate, and why. If it can be legislated away than it is a privilege. But understand that many privileges simply masks or mimic rights, and if we ignored the privilege the right to do the same thing is still there. For instance the right to travel in a car whether we have a driver’s licence or not. The right to own what we want, such as a gun. Passing a law against it doesn’t take away the right – tyrants will TELL you it does, because it suits them. The crux of the matter is the violence that comes if we don’t’ obey their dictates, and whether we are strong enough to withstand that violence or not. Usually if we are not strong enough to do so we obey – but they right still remains. We simply cease to exercise it to avoid pain or imprisonment. If we unite we are more than strong enough to ignore their scribbles. As long as just a few of us stand separately they send their enforcers to destroy the few of us who stand up.

      For instance I have decided as a sentient being that I have the right to carry a gun under my shirt, simply because I want to. No one and nothing can take that right away from me. No legislation. No law. But I know that if I do this without a paper of privilege from those in power in this area of the world, a paper called a concealed carry permit, and enforcers of the state find out, these people called police will likely hurt me and kidnap me. So for now I go to get their paper of privilege – but my ability to do as I please never changes. This is what we must understand. Even if they legislate on top of a right as a privilege, and then legislate the privilege away, the right never changes anywhere in the process. The right remains whether we exercise it or not. They have legislated that there are circumstances where we can’t travel freely – roadblocks. If we stop, the law didn’t stop us. The legislation didn’t stop us, or take away our ability to keep going and to not comply. WE took our foot off the gas and pressed the breaks, to avoid being hurt or caged by the enforcers there. We confuse compliance under duress with having a right taken away. Rights are inherent and can’t be take away, but we can pretend that they have been, or we can believe that they have been, to avoid getting hurt. That is why a thrust of my argument is uniting. When enough of us unite so that our force surpasses that of the state, then we can do as we please while ignoring their privileges.

      The people in Waco exercised their rights, but were simply overpowered. No legislation could stop them from doing what they wanted, or having the right to do as they pleased, as is the case with everyone. But when those who claim lordship over this land sent enforcers they eventually sent enough with enough technology to kill them all. But if EVERYONE in the country came by and stood with them, the enforcers could not enforce the erroneous belief of the tyrants that they can determine what we can or cannot do. Think of the Bundy ranch incident. A man decided what is rights were, according to what I read of the incident, based by him upon centuries of his family using land in that way, while those in government legislated different. I don’t know the fullness of the whats and whys. But my understanding is that when they demanded action and payment from him, he did not budge. And when enforcers came to hurt him or his property enough armed people went out to stop the enforcers from doing so. This is the reason why American military is occupying and blowing up Iraq, or Afghanistan, but NOT China or North Vietnam. Because the American tyrants know they would get some severe repercussions from attacking China or North Vietnam.

      Take another example. I claim it to be my right to carry a gun under my shirt, or in my bag. Yet if I did this without a privilege card called a concealed carry permit, and the enforcers of the state caught me, I am certain they will hurt me and kidnap me. So I will go get a privilege card not because the right has been taken away – I can still do what I want – but to avoid giving those who currently have more ability to initiate force than me the supposed reason to do so. Under duress I get it, not because my right has been taken away. But I hope to educate enough people to the inalienability of rights, and the feasibility and peace of living without a ruler (anarchy), that with enough of us we are strong enough to give them back their privilege cards – licences, permits, etc, and defend ourselves if they attack us for not bowing to their tyranny.

      It’s not about their scribble, and it never has been – it’s about whether enough of us are awake to defend ourselves against the aggression of those who falsely believe or want us to falsely believe they have the right to control us. We can give back all their privileges, including all their permits, licences, money, etc., and live freely at any time. Jails prove that. It’s just that the people who live freely when it doesn’t confirm to what the rulers of this land want are hurt and/or jailed. It starts with recognizing intellectually that their scribbles DO NOT take away our rights. They issue a threat for non-compliance, and WE AGREE to comply to not experience the threat being carried out. When we are able to avoid or counter the enforced threats, people still do what they want even today. Those that get caught often end up in jail. And this coerces the rest of us to obey to avoid the negative repercussions. I propose we unite so we can withstand any state aggression. Then their scribbles also practically mean nothing.

      1. Darryl,
        That was a quote from George Carlin. He was making the point that if the Bill of Rights is just that, rights, then those rights are turned into priveleges by making exception after exception to those rights. Carlin grew up while movies were censored; while books like Ulysses, Tropic of Cancer, and Fanny Hill could not be mailed; and saw the three broadcasting networks continuing the tradition. He fought that and actually won. I think he also realized how the other Amendments were being parsed away. He was a very well-read man.

        As for your polemic after your first sentence, I’m ambivalent. I agree in that rights disappear if non-government citizens let them disappear, but I don’t agree with where that leads you. I used non-government citizens because too many citizens that are employed by the government are at the forefront of eroding our rights with the bromide that they are protecting us or our rights. Not all of them whatsoever, because they are individuals. The VA scandal broke for that very reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *