Article Image

4409 -- Mesa Police Lynch a Ron Paul Sign

Written by Subject: Videos by 4409
Bureaucrats create problems like this everyday by pretending to "own" public land and rent it out like a private business owner. They go to great lengths to make you believe you still own and control things but obviously you don't.

The notion that someone can lease and take ownership of "public property" and deny people access never set well with me. Either it's public or it's not.

The public does own it....well, up until the point a man hands a wad of cash to some government bureaucrat. Magically a wad of cash makes it to where you and I are restricted from some place we may have already paid for.

By allowing individuals to "rent" the land and having them attain a "permit" the bureaucrats are handing it over to folks that intend to make it "private"



Once a person forks over the cash and gains the "use permit" he or she can act like any other private business owner and kick your ass out. However, it gets better because now they also have armed pirates called cops who will actually enforce their rules.

These cops where smart enough not to actually remove the signs themselves but rather had the event coordinators do their bidding. However, they did blatantly assist in the theft and lynching of the sign by refusing to act.

In the end they almost ALWAYS show their true colors and they ALWAYS show you who they really work for and trust me, it's not you.

Shelton Obadiah

GOP Presidential debate in Mesa, Arizona.

From the Mesa Police Department:
Srgt Martin and Officer Beauford

First bald guy:
I believe Mike "SS" Bell?
Government Socialist.

Second bald guy with glasses:
David "SS" Short
Downtown Mesa Association

Daily Paul Fundraiser via Freedoms Phoenix Silver Dime Cards


1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

After watching closely, I believe the comments and the 'handshake' at 7:32 in is MOST telling.  From what I can gather, the 'reasoning' used for this 'action' was the 'permit holder' claim that 'inappropriate' signs/materials were to be moved to the 'free speech zone'.

Had this been a 'Dream Act' sign, an 'End All Wars' sign, or an 'Abortion is Murder' sign, then an argument using 'inappropriate' as a standard could be stretched to apply; but this was a sign endorsing one of the Candidates present in the contest being promoted - the Presidential Race.  On that fact alone, their argument fails.

I agree with Shelton - the U.S.Constitution is the SUPREME Law of the Land, and there shall be NO law made ANYWHERE 'abridging the freedom of speech'.

Why wasn't ownership of the sign claimed so they wouldn't have been able to claim it as 'abandoned'?  Fear of one more trip to the hoosegow?  You would have had a GREAT lawsuit!

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: