This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Here Mr. Oat now this is a story you can get your teeth into...

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

http://www.infowars.com/video-man-gets-8-months-in-federal-prison-for-driving-away-from-internal-checkpoint/


Video: Man Gets 8 MONTHS in Federal Prison For Driving Away From Internal Checkpoint
Border Agents found "anti-government propaganda" in his car


The footage shows Mr Sophin approaching a checkpoint approximately 20 miles from the border of Mexico on I-10 near Sierra Blanca, Texas. When the Border Patrol Agent asked Sophin if he is an American citizen, he replied with a dry comment.

“You know, I was going to tell you that I wasn’t going to take any questions today, and then I realized that… if Obama is letting everybody in the country, what difference does it make?” Sophin said.

The agent wasn’t playing games and replied that it “makes all the difference.”

At that point, Sophin refused to cooperate any further, calmly stating “I don’t want to answer any questions, O.K.? Thanks. Have a good night” as he drove away, at regular speed, from the checkpoint.

The agent is heard yelling “Hey, you’re not free to go!” as Sophin drives away.

Agents drove after Sophin and eventually flagged him down and ordered him out of his vehicle at gunpoint.

Sophin was arrested and taken back to the checkpoint, where his vehicle was searched without a warrant or probable cause.

In addition to Sophin’s legally owned firearms, and shooting accessories, the agents found what they described as “anti-government propaganda”. The two items given this description were a copy of The New American Magazine, a freedom and Constitution oriented publication owned by The John Birch Society, and a copy of a book called “Freedom”, written by journalist and activist Adam Kokesh.

braindead.
.....During the trial, a juror explained why the decision was made to convict Sophin, despite the clear evidence that no crime was committed. “He should have to answer questions just like the rest of us,” the juror said. In other words, because he decided to stand up for his Constitutional rights, Sophin had to be made an example of.



“FREEDOM! is only anti-government propaganda if government is anti-freedom, which it is. This is why my book is also banned in US prisons. By banning my book, government has again revealed itself to be intellectually and morally bankrupt, nothing more than an elaborate scheme to steal for the super-rich. Freedom is a good idea, and good ideas don’t require force. Government, on the other hand, uses force to prevent the free flow of ideas because good ideas are a threat to all who profit from bad ideas. Fortunately, the more that agents of government declare themselves so clearly anti-freedom, the more people will hear the message.”

View user profile
If this had happened anywhere else in America, it would have been thrown out as a matter of law and no jury would have heard this case.  However, the Supreme Court for almost a hundred years has the border exception to the fourth amendment.  Not only does this exception apply right at the border, but they have extended I believe up to twenty miles inside any contiguous border, so  along the Mexican and Canadian borders they throw away our rights under the fourth in regard to searches and seizures.  Hopefully the Appeals court will moderate this sentence.


However, I agree with you 100%, and thank you for posting this because it is the jurors misconception of our constitution.   This weekend is critical.  People should reconnect with the courage of our forefathers who risked their lives to bring each of us the protection of the constitution, which particularly the first, second, and fourth amendments are constantly being attacked under the guise of taking our rights for just a little bit of security.   These rights are qualified, but the slippery slope must stop.  I believe Scalia and a majority of the court have been leaning to limit these type of qualifying exceptions.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:If this had happened anywhere else in America, it would have been thrown out as a matter of law and no jury would have heard this case.  However, the Supreme Court for almost a hundred years has the border exception to the fourth amendment.  Not only does this exception apply right at the border, but they have extended I believe up to twenty miles inside any contiguous border, so  along the Mexican and Canadian borders they throw away our rights under the fourth in regard to searches and seizures.  Hopefully the Appeals court will moderate this sentence.


However, I agree with you 100%, and thank you for posting this because it is the jurors misconception of our constitution.   This weekend is critical.  People should reconnect with the courage of our forefathers who risked their lives to bring each of us the protection of the constitution, which particularly the first, second, and fourth amendments are constantly being attacked under the guise of taking our rights for just a little bit of security.   These rights are qualified, but the slippery slope must stop.  I believe Scalia and a majority of the court have been leaning to limit these type of qualifying exceptions.

Actually it's 100 miles

View user profile
This story highlights the difference between stupid people and smart people.

View user profile
Actually it's 100 miles

That slippery slope will have it at five hundred miles if we do not say enough.

View user profile
Vikingwoman wrote:This story highlights the difference between stupid people and smart people.

Also brainwashed lemings and informed Americans...you have the right to remain silent and the right to travel unmolested. I guess you don't understand principles Dreams. Better reread the declaration of independence that real men died for and the constitution that reiterates the rights God gave us.

Oh why bother just lick boots and they won't hurt you.....

View user profile
Except for at the border. You must say whether you are an American citizen if asked. And God didn't give us any damn rights. People did.

View user profile
And God didn't give us any damn rights. People did.

Jefferson and the concept of inalienable rights might tend to disagree with your paradigm.  Regardless of your personal religious beliefs, our founding fathers expressed their belief in a creator who gave us those rights...not men...but it was men who must protect those rights.....the difference of endowment and protection are two different concepts.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

View user profile
Their beliefs do not equate into God giving us anything. They were ordinary men w/ no heavenly powers to speak for God.

View user profile
Their beliefs do not equate into God giving us anything. They were ordinary men w/ no heavenly powers to speak for God.

They were extraordinary men, and they never claimed to speak for God, simply recognized certain rights as inherent and inalienable.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:Their beliefs do not equate into God giving us anything. They were ordinary men w/ no heavenly powers to speak for God.

They were extraordinary men, and they never claimed to speak for God, simply recognized certain rights as inherent and inalienable.

Exactly... also referred to as the "laws of nature" back then.

2seaoat wrote:Their beliefs do not equate into God giving us anything. They were ordinary men w/ no heavenly powers to speak for God.

They were extraordinary men, and they never claimed to speak for God, simply recognized certain rights as inherent and inalienable.

Then you're not making any sense. You said they believed in a "creator" who gave us those rights insinuating God gave us those rights.

View user profile

Back in the 1960's and '70's, there were at least 2 highway checkpoints on the road from my home town to Matamoros, across the border from Brownsville, where the main border checkpoint allowed entry into Mexico. I will make an educated guess that the first checkpoint was about 100 miles inside Texas...because the King Ranch stretches 70 miles along Hwy. 77. Just south of that is the Armstrong Ranch...the site of Dick Cheney's infamous hunting trip, and a notorious haven for the GOP.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum