Ein gioco video poker gratis video poker online gratis casino bonus no deposit slots machine regeln bei poker…

Thank you, Jim Brossard, for standing up for you country yet again; another job too many Americans just won’t do….

Not to mention the wanton desecration of millions of flags daily by the US government. SOMEBODY STOP THEM NOW!

If some liberal had cut down a conservative’s flag you guys would be screaming about how unhinged they are. It wasn’t his property. He had no right to do it.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 12:19 PM

And had the police done their job, Jim Brousard would not have had to do it for them.

The heck with Rudy McRomney and Fred the fake!

Jim Broussard! for president!

csdeven on October 3, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Hey cs, glad to see you are still here. I didn’t see your post in the Fred/Jeri thread. I hope all is well with you & the family.

And I’m still anticipating the single malt Glen Morangie

Why’d he go the vigilante route instead of calling the cops?

Perhaps because they have been emasculated by the leftie lawyers?

I hope this brave Vet does not have to go to court for his actions. But if he does, I’ll donate some hard earned greenbacks to his defense.

If some liberal had cut down a conservative’s flag you guys would be screaming about how unhinged they are. It wasn’t his property. He had no right to do it.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I would argue it was his responsibility–as well as that of innumerable other people who saw federal law being broken and did nothing about it.

In fact,unless you are raped in front of them WHILE THEY ARE LOOKING at you,and for the most part,not even then,cops are useless….

Allah,I feel bad for your recent surgery, but I can one-up you…had ALL of my teeth taken out after a particularly horrific mugging that broke my entire face…and cops were there to deny my rights and NOT get me into an ambulance…

Sorry for the rant all,but there are times that it’s so very tiring hearing a hero questioned

If some liberal had cut down a conservative’s flag you guys would be screaming about how unhinged they are. It wasn’t his property. He had no right to do it.

Please. Stop the banging the libertarian/devil’s advocate drum for once. If I were to fly a Mexican flag over a US flag in the US, and a liberal rectified that situation, I would be shocked and say, there is a God after all – even a liberal can be patriotic, who would have thought!

That man may have committed a crime, by violating the letter of the law, but he did not violate the spirit of the law, and it is the spirit of the law in which those letters are written. People forget that. His actions were more than morally mitigated by his motives in defending the honor of his nation, and in rectifying an already existent illegal situation. If all crime was this type of crime, there would be no need for police.

If this is vigilantism, then the West, especially America, needs more vigilantism. Much more. How many times do we hear of someone being beaten or killed while onlookers do nothing? Just this week, a man was beaten with a brick for 7 minutes while onlookers watched. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Do not look to the minions of the state to save itself. Calling the police for something like this, or to stop a beating already in progress, is tantamount to doing nothing. And in that vacuum of indifference, or indecision, a man is killed, a flag rallies sedition, society is sucked into oblivion. Carpe Diem.

Apathy, not direct action, is the death of any democracy and it is threatening to be the death of America. Those that fret over patriotic vigilantism at a time when they also know that the republic is suffering a death of a hundred million cuts of indifference, surely are, as illustrative of the disease of cognitive dissonance as can be found.

2) AP has had his lunch money stolen way too many times and never learned how to fight back. I pick #2. Seems like the kind of “guy” who would let some lout abuse his mother/ girlfriend/ little sister, and then squirm away with thoughts of a law suit in his head. Guess what? Some people stand up for what they believe in, and take action. It’s also illegal to swat some #sshole for insulting your wife, but there are those of us who would…

Well, too bad for Jim the Vet, then. Cutting down people’s property and waving around a Rambo knife makes us look like nuts by association.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I disagree. He did it just fine. I would prefer that he calmly inform the Mexican pos that the manner in which the American flag is being displayed is inconsistent with Federal guidelines, but cutting it down was probably faster and no one seemed to take great offense.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Absolutely perfect!

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM

DING we have a winner!

Oh, and it really isn’t a big knife. I don’t get so many people saying that. It is an average sized sheath knife with about a 7″ blade (I had one just like it). While larger than a typical pocket knife, it is smaller than a typical butcher’s or chef’s knife found in most everyone’s kitchen.

It wasn’t his property. He had no right to do it.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 12:19 PM

So a man disarming a thug who’s using it to rob a liquor store is wrong, since the gun is the property of the thug?

Makes sense to me. Damn vigilantes!

Oh wait. This lawbreaker was on his own property? So if a sniper was picking off citizens from that bar, would it be wrong for a marine to bust through the back door (breaking and entering) and yank the guy’s rifle (property) out of his hand, or would he be just another pathetic vigilante?

This entire argument is stupid. The cops weren’t doing their job. The flag was illegal. The Veteran put a stop to a crime. Period.

If some liberal had cut down a conservative’s flag you guys would be screaming about how unhinged they are. It wasn’t his property. He had no right to do it.

Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 12:19 PM

The only difference I see here is that what the bar was doing was illegal, and that’s a fairly large difference. I’m still not arguing in favor of vigilantism.

However, there do seem to be some legal exemptions when someone is stopping another from breaking a law. I mean, setting “aboot” someone surely isn’t legal in most circumstances. This isn’t to say that the two are equal in any other way except that both stopped a crime.

I was working.

tad on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Most commenters here seem to identify with Broussard’s frustration, and cheer his ability to take some action. I think others wonder when/if the time will come that they will be “forced” to do the same. It’s not a pleasant thought, but maybe necessary. You, on the other hand, seem satisfied with clever talk. I haven’t seen you offer viable solutions.

Try talking with la Raza, or visit your local mosque, and suggest a debate. Bring along a joint, or not, or discuss the moral shortcomings of the colonists at the Tea Party. See if you prefer the rhetoric and logic and intelligence of our enemies. If yes, stay. If not, come back. And thank a serviceman if you see one.

In the face of the indisputable Mexican reconquestia of the south western United States the actions of Jim Broussard cannot conceivably be declared an act of vigilantism. They can only be seen as the actions of a citizen solider a militiaman acting out of conscience in the defense of his country. this is not and cannot be seen simply as a police matter, but as a matter of national sovereignty executed by a former member of this nations military, hence his qualification according to the US Constitution as a militiaman.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Amen! Preach it Brother!

Why’d he go the vigilante route instead of calling the cops?

Often we find ourselves standing around doing nothing, and accomplishing nothing. He did something, if you don’t like it file a suit, or protest…but don’t whine about it.
Taking action, and maybe making a mistake, in this case is better than standing by and analyzing options. Sometimes it just makes sense to act.

You agree then that the “do your own thing” mentality must have limits?

Surely.

When one’s actions pose a threat of harm or aggress against another’s rights, the threshold between what is,
to use your phrase, the “do your own thing mentality” and what is in the best nature of society as a whole has been crossed.

Explain to me how a consenting adult who choses to use a drug, any drug, is violating the rights of others?

I’m not talking about crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, the presence of which does not mitigate the crime’s having been committed.

Drinking and driving is illegal not because alcohol, rather than marijuana or another substance, is involved, but, rather, because the act of drinking and driving puts other people at risk, aggresses against them, and violates their right to personal safety.

Those crimes committed by those people under the influence of drugs, whether impaired driving or another legal infraction, are criminal offenses because a violation of rights has occurred, not because of the presence of a substance.

Driving while tired can result in impairment, which can cause traffic accidents, some even of a fatal variety.

Should we make it illegal for people not to get enough sleep, just because there exists the possibility that sleep deprived people could operate a motor vechicle?

That solution, while attractive to some, fails to take in account that the illegality rests with the action, not with the actor’s mental state, which can be as easily impaired by drugs as by a host of other factors, including sleep deprivation, mental illness, etc.

Some people commit crimes, the actual violation of another’s rights, while on drugs; others, while drunk; still others, stong-cold sober.

The substance no more caused the crime than did a person’s background, which could include sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc.

Crimes are a violation of rights. Crimes should be prosecuted. But how, please tell me, is a person’s doing drugs, in the absence of any actual criminal behavior, a violation of another’s rights?

Bigger question:

Will the ACLU defend Jim Broussard if he is charged?

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:17 PM

He11 no…They’ll be suing him on behalf of the bar owner who flew the Mexican flag.

In the face of the indisputable Mexican reconquestia of the south western United States the actions of Jim Broussard cannot conceivably be declared an act of vigilantism. They can only be seen as the actions of a citizen solider a militiaman acting out of conscience in the defense of his country. this is not and cannot be seen simply as a police matter, but as a matter of national sovereignty executed by a former member of this nations military, hence his qualification according to the US Constitution as a militiaman.

If charged or cited, maybe he can insist on court trial and have something like this as his defense