Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

George Soros…possibly one of the most evil men alive today.   His Open Society Foundation, and if you think that his Foundation works like the Clinton Foundation, you’d be closer to the truth than you might realize, and his thoughts about the police might interest you.   Years back, Hussein Obama announced, in no uncertain terms, that he wanted a private police force.   Here’s the actual quote,  “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we set,” Obama said at the time. “We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”  Obama’s calls for a private, standing army was made at a 2008 appearance in Colorado Springs.   For most rational thinking Americans that was a red flag the size of a football field, yet there were others, like Soros, who thought it was a great idea.   Another, earlier delusional person, created his private army.   It was the Gestapo.   One might think that an idea of a private police force might have withered on the vine, because you didn’t hear any mention of it…but you’d be wrong.   Hussein Obama and his Mini-me, Rahm Emanuel, are of the belief that you never let a crisis go to waste, and the unrest in the country right now, with factions lining up on different sides of the law might just be the trigger that Hussein Obama wants…so martial law can be declared.   Once martial law is declared all government, or nearly all, is disbanded and the sole authority is the President.  For Hussein Obama this would be a dream come true…he’d be the supreme authority and have free reign to do whatever he desires…something that the wussified Congress has just about let him do now.

Al Sharpton, that paragon of virtue and wisdom chimed in on this idea, back in May of 2015, and he said, “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases. Police must be held accountable.”   You’ll note that Sharpie doesn’t say anything about the rioters, the looters, or the various factions like the Black Lives Matter group.   No, the control has to be one-sided according to him.   When a policeman, of any color, decides that the end result may be his death, then the risk is no longer worthwhile.   Following this to a logical conclusion, you’ll have police departments shrinking and, possibly, disappearing altogether from cities and towns.  That’s when you’ll have full-blown anarchy.

Now, about permits…a protest permit or parade permit is permission granted by a governmental agency for a demonstration to be held in a particular venue at a particular time. Failing to obtain a permit may lead to charges of parading without a permit. The requirement of a permit is sometimes denounced as an infringement of free speech, as permits are denied on spurious grounds or protestors are corralled into free speech zones.   Permits are sometimes denied on grounds that the protest will create a security risk.  There seems to be evidence that the available venues for protests are shrinking in number; that citizens have experienced increasing difficulty in gaining unrestricted access to them; and that such venues are no longer where most people typically congregate in large numbers.   In Washington, DC, the National Park Service Police, U.S. Capitol Police, and Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia have an elaborate permitting system.   Many famous people such as Martin Luther King, Jr. have been arrested for protesting without a permit.   So, how does that square with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?   The wording of that amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  

I’m no lawyer but it sounds like you can say darn near anything anywhere…with the possible exception of yelling “fire” in a theatre.   On a lot of weekends, in a lot of cities in this country you can find someone preaching, and it’s not always religious…sometimes it’s political.   There’s discussions, exchange of ideas, a lively back-and-forth…and that’s the way it’s supposed to be.   So, how is it that we hear of people being denied permits to speak…regardless of what they’re speaking about?   Some places actually have set aside areas that are designated as “free speech zones” and that’s where you have to be if you want to say something that might be contrary to the popular opinion.   Is it just me or does this smack of some sort of censorship?   Even people passing out copies of the United States Constitution have been harassed and denied that opportunity to enlighten the people.   What have we come to in this country, when free speech is no longer free, and you need special permits to talk.  At one time college was where you heard many different ideas on a subject, but that has been curtailed drastically.  Now, if you disagree with the instructor you may flunk the course or even be asked to leave.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?