Agreed, at this point I think it's more than likely he did it himself. No matter, some small town somewhere will crap over themselves to make him their chief, I've seen similar before.
No, he's already said why he couldn't have been the one who did it: He owes too much money on it (ROTFL).
(In all seriousness, insurance fraud to get out from under a loan has got to be the #1 motive for arson of the arsonist's own property. And yes, he really did say that as the reason why it couldn't have been him.)
Neverending propaganda. The only "controversy" regarding open carry is when anyone in government seeks to conspire to violate the enumerated, individual, inherent, fundamental, incorporated Constitutional right to bear arms.
How many other ways must it be described before "shall not be infringed" and "shall not make or enforce any law" and "abridge" are admitted?
Those attempting to usurp the rights of others are not only controversial, they actually have a death wish.....even if they do not realize it as such.
Enough of this madness, call out that false premise everywhere it is employed. In this example, openly exercising a enumerated right cannot be itself controversial. Those attempting to infringe upon that exercise? Well, they are in fact the criminals of the highest order, offending and violating the highest law of the land. Controversy? Hardly. That done knowingly is treason defined.
Here is the test. Nd it is very simple. Is government empowered to compel a human being to conceal his bible? To ban him from carrying his bible openly? No? Why not? Ummm because an enumerated rights makes it crystal clear that government does not HAVE the authority to do either. Likewise, it is demonstrated that government does not have the authority to compel a permission slip for said exercise. PERIOD.
Hey NRA flunkies, you permission slip pansies, how about answering the questions, like your butt buddy this article is about? GO on, tell us all how we need state preemption for (actually of) the First Amendment to stop all those local governments from making their own bible carry laws.... Explain to us all how the state governments must be empowered to issues bible carry permits.
He's a LEO - a chief - and he has no security at his residence? No cameras? I mean, he could have written off the (minimal) expense as job-related, and that's only if he doesn't have the department cover the expense to begin with. If you shop around, you could probably find a multiple camera (maybe night capable) setup with DVR for around $500. It wouldn't be state of the art, but it would be way better than nothing.
No one saw anything? No witnesses? No suspects?
One incident, and he ejects from the cockpit? He resigns? Hmm... does he happen to have another job lined up?
Odds are he set his own truck on fire. It's well known that liberals love to stage these type of fake "hate crime" incidents all the time. This guy is just using the same tactic.
6 comments:
Agreed, at this point I think it's more than likely he did it himself. No matter, some small town somewhere will crap over themselves to make him their chief, I've seen similar before.
No, he's already said why he couldn't have been the one who did it: He owes too much money on it (ROTFL).
(In all seriousness, insurance fraud to get out from under a loan has got to be the #1 motive for arson of the arsonist's own property. And yes, he really did say that as the reason why it couldn't have been him.)
Vae, Caesar!
Neverending propaganda. The only "controversy" regarding open carry is when anyone in government seeks to conspire to violate the enumerated, individual, inherent, fundamental, incorporated Constitutional right to bear arms.
How many other ways must it be described before "shall not be infringed" and "shall not make or enforce any law" and "abridge" are admitted?
Those attempting to usurp the rights of others are not only controversial, they actually have a death wish.....even if they do not realize it as such.
Enough of this madness, call out that false premise everywhere it is employed. In this example, openly exercising a enumerated right cannot be itself controversial. Those attempting to infringe upon that exercise? Well, they are in fact the criminals of the highest order, offending and violating the highest law of the land. Controversy? Hardly. That done knowingly is treason defined.
Here is the test. Nd it is very simple.
Is government empowered to compel a human being to conceal his bible? To ban him from carrying his bible openly? No? Why not? Ummm because an enumerated rights makes it crystal clear that government does not HAVE the authority to do either. Likewise, it is demonstrated that government does not have the authority to compel a permission slip for said exercise. PERIOD.
Hey NRA flunkies, you permission slip pansies, how about answering the questions, like your butt buddy this article is about? GO on, tell us all how we need state preemption for (actually of) the First Amendment to stop all those local governments from making their own bible carry laws.... Explain to us all how the state governments must be empowered to issues bible carry permits.
Sheesh. Pray America is awakening, please.
So much WTF here. Let's see:
He's a LEO - a chief - and he has no security at his residence? No cameras? I mean, he could have written off the (minimal) expense as job-related, and that's only if he doesn't have the department cover the expense to begin with. If you shop around, you could probably find a multiple camera (maybe night capable) setup with DVR for around $500. It wouldn't be state of the art, but it would be way better than nothing.
No one saw anything? No witnesses? No suspects?
One incident, and he ejects from the cockpit? He resigns? Hmm... does he happen to have another job lined up?
Odds are he set his own truck on fire. It's well known that liberals love to stage these type of fake "hate crime" incidents all the time. This guy is just using the same tactic.
Post a Comment