It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schaeffer Cox

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Haven't heard about this guy before and there didn't seem to be much on ATS about it. If anything said in this video is true, what ever respect I had for the FBI will be completely vaporized because it seems they truly will go to any lengths to destroy their enemies. Before he was targeted he was speaking about about the expanse of big government and crimes being committed from within the government. Apparently they tried to convince him to commit a mass shooting and when that failed they took it even further by kidnapping him and his family. It seems they were finally able to get him some time in 2012 on some weapons charges and a conspiracy to commit murder.



SNIP: Removed Petition as per the Terms and Conditions agreed to on joining

The Wikipedia page on Cox is unsurprisingly highly selective when it comes to presenting any information that may show he was targeted by certain agencies. The one thing Wikipedia does mention in his defense is that false reports were released by the media:

It was reported that he assaulted his wife and pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment,[15] but his wife joined him to publicly deny the claims, and to explain the allegations completely as lies to defame Cox.[16]


Here's a speech he did in late 2009 before any of these shenanigans begun:

edit on 5/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/5/2017 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Further information:



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Now I understand why I'm so angry and being forced further and further to the left.

I don't understand how right wingers can be anti-Fed but pro-police. I don't understand how Christians can be pro-10-Commandments but also pro-military actions without declarations of war.

The video looks great. The minute or two I watch with Schaeffer talking about the Federal Reserve was right on. I will watch the rest of it at home when my bandwidth is cheaper.

Here's a really good video on understanding how the Federal Reserve absorbs, steals, all of the US citizen's money:




edit on 5-6-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

ATS is a strange place. You would think this thread would have much more flags.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Now I understand why I'm so angry and being forced further and further to the left.

It seems to me this guy was attacked by absolutely psychopathic leftists in the FBI because he leaned too far to the right for their tastes.


I don't understand how right wingers can be anti-Fed but pro-police. I don't understand how Christians can be pro-10-Commandments but also pro-military actions without declarations of war.

I refer to myself as a right leaning libertarian, which is how I suspect Cox would also label himself. The problem is not the federal government, it's an overreaching federal government, the same goes for the police. They are both necessary for a modern society to function properly, police are necessary to help minimize crime and respond to emergency situations. The problem is when they abuse their power and create a police state.

Also I am not religious which may surprise you. Just because a person leans to the right does not automatically imply they are religious. And libertarians, even if they are religious, stand apart from the typical conservative war mongers, we are non-interventionists and we respect the sovereignty of other nations. We apply the same rules of liberty and sovereignty to all nations, not just our own. This is why I argue Iran has a right to nuclear energy.
edit on 5/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Cox describes himself as a sovereign citizen. He doesn't "lean" at all.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Well in that lecture he speaks against principles of socialism and Keynesian economics in favor of free market capitalistic principles, he favors small government and personal freedom, and he's clearly a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, which seems to be at the core of why he's been targeted. So overall he has many beliefs that align with a right leaning stance, regardless of how he chooses to label himself.
edit on 5/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Now I understand why I'm so angry and being forced further and further to the left.

It seems to me this guy was attacked by absolutely psychopathic leftists in the FBI because he leaned too far to the right for their tastes.


Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is not exactly a right wing policy. Conservatism means preserving the status quo. Leftist want to redistribute power to the citizen. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is about as far left as you can get!


originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I refer to myself as a right leaning libertarian, which is how I suspect Cox would also label himself. The problem is not the federal government, it's an overreaching federal government, the same goes for the police. They are both necessary for a modern society to function properly, police are necessary to help minimize crime and respond to emergency situations. The problem is when they abuse their power and create a police state.

Also I am not religious which may surprise you. Just because a person leans to the right does not automatically imply they are religious. And libertarians, even if they are religious, stand apart from the typical conservative war mongers, we are non-interventionists and we respect the sovereignty of other nations. We apply the same rules of liberty and sovereignty to all nations, not just our own. This is why I argue Iran has a right to nuclear energy.


I don't agree with the "overreaching federal government" characterization. What problem are you trying to solve? Do you want less government so the rich can get richer? Or do you want MORE government to ensure free markets? Or do you want MORE government to protect workers from wage exploitation?

Big government or less government who cares! What matters is having public policy to address issues you consider important. I am against libertarianism if it means laissez faire capitalism turns everyone into a slave for the corporations.

It's weird how people on the right or libertarians think government is the problem. And people on the left think corporations and CEOs are the problem. I think most people on the left think government is the only solution capable of fighting the corporations. Where the people on the right or libertarians think by making government smaller or cutter taxes magic fairies are going to somehow address the HUGE depth of wealth inequality in this country.

Nice to see you are not a pro-war libertarian. Those guys are weird.


edit on 5-6-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Or y'know...he was targeted for his activism in the sovereign movement and talking about how his militia has bomb makers and rocket launchers and all that happy stuff.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

That stuff will get you in trouble. There may be another side to this story.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is not exactly a right wing policy. Conservatism means preserving the status quo. Leftist want to redistribute power to the citizen.

Isn't it odd then that some of the biggest proponents of auditing the Federal Reserve are right leaning libertarians such as Ron Paul and many of the people desperately trying to avoid it are liberals? The Federal Reserve is a tool for creating wealth and handing it off to anyone they like, of course socialists will protect that. Your point is valid though, that should be the type of thing democrats do, and there are some rare ducks like Bernie Sanders who have the balls to make it happen... but we all know how the DNC treats those who really stand for the people and not their own self interests.

Also being conservative does not mean "preserving the status quo", it means having a respect for tradition and culture in preference of radical progressive change. Also one does not necessarily need to be conservative to be right leaning, I do not consider myself a conservative, I am not religious, I don't care what gay people do, I'm a futurist, but that doesn't mean I have no respect for culture and tradition, I try to keep a balanced perspective instead of falling into one of the extremes. Please see: Far-Left Progressivism.


Do you want less government so the rich can get richer? Or do you want MORE government to ensure free markets? Or do you want MORE government to protect workers from wage exploitation?

I just don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Wanting less government has nothing to do with wanting to get richer, it's about preventing a nanny state which tries to control every aspect of our lives, it's about a desire to have personal freedom and liberty, free from a tyrannical government. Furthermore, a free market has always been exactly that, one which is free from a high degree of government regulations and control. When the government has a high degree of control over the market you have socialism. Regulations are of course necessary to prevent crime but there comes a point where the regulations are nothing but a burden to the free market. It's a very complex topic because you need to have quite a deep understanding of economics to fully grasp why I believe free market economics leads to the highest standard of living overall.


Big government or less government who cares!

Why is it leftists refuse to acknowledge any role the government plays in damaging the economy? Can you not see that a larger government requires more man power and more taxes to fund themselves, and can you not see the danger of ever-expanding governments getting out of control and abusing their power? In fact I wrote a thread on this very topic not too long ago:


Once the government gets a taste of the power that socialist policies bring, they never stop wanting more, and that is the key point I want to make in this thread. In todays age, the governments of many nations are up to their eyeballs in debt because they just love spending money so much, and the only way they can pay off much of that debt is to take more and more money from individuals and businesses. They are always looking for new ways to siphon money from every possible source.

There's no doubt in my mind, that in 50 years, when I'm an old man, I will still be listening to debates about debt and taxes when I turn on the news. The pundits will still be arguing between themselves about what sort of new tax is required in order to keep the government afloat.

On The Expansion of Government



Where the people on the right or libertarians think by making government smaller or cutter taxes magic fairies are doing to somehow address the HUGE depth of wealth inequality in this country.

Like I said, the issue is the economic system we use, the debt-based Keynesian framework that our modern money system uses is the root cause of the problem and the only reasons our government uses it is because it allows them to spend money they don't have and control how money is created. It's a government controlled money system, and the larger the government gets, the more money they need to create, thus expanding the national debt at an ever increasing pace, because all money is created via debts.
edit on 5/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Or y'know...he was targeted for his activism in the sovereign movement and talking about how his militia has bomb makers and rocket launchers and all that happy stuff.

Exactly where did he talk about that stuff, is there any record of it? Also shouldn't they target the bomb makers rather than a guy who espoused ideals of peace and voluntarism on multiple occasions? Especially after they placed a mole in the militia to provoke a mass shooting and Cox plainly rejected the idea on several occasions, why would they continue to go after him so hard, to the point of kidnapping his family? Clearly they were looking to create a reason to take him down, that couldn't be any more obvious.
edit on 5/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I plan to answer you but I have a meeting I have to attend. I will give you an answer in a couple hours. Great discussion. I like the way you make your arguments. Please check the thread later.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yea, there is a record of it. If you bothered to look at both sides rather than just accept one side at face value, you'd probably have seen it.

You don't get a free pass to do whatever you want just because you talked about volunteer work at some point. That's not how it works.

They sure didn't have to look very hard to "take him down." He did plenty to get on the radar all by his lil ol self.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yea, there is a record of it. If you bothered to look at both sides rather than just accept one side at face value, you'd probably have seen it.

Well then please enlighten us with your sources. And don't say "go look it up yourself", you want to make claims, then back them up.


They sure didn't have to look very hard to "take him down." He did plenty to get on the radar all by his lil ol self.

Oh so several years, several moles, even kidnapping and death threats, after which he still hadn't been pushed to the point of committing any violent act. Even now all there is are claims he planned to do something, claims from the very same people who used such low brow tactics... forgive me if I don't instantly believe what they say.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




Cox was certainly talking the talk. In a November 2009 speech to a small crowd in Montana, he boasted about his militia’s readiness for real combat. “We’ve got a 3,500 man force, militia force, in Fairbanks,” he said. “It is not a rag-tag deal. I mean, we’re set; we’ve got a medical unit that’s got surgeons and doctors and medical trucks and mobile surgery units and stuff like that. We’ve got engineers that make GPS jammers, cell phone jammers, bombs, and all sorts of nifty stuff. We’ve got guys with airplanes with laser acquisition stuff and we’ve got rocket launchers and grenade launchers and claymores and machine guns and cavalry, and we’ve got boats. It’s all set.”

He's just a Peacemaker


You'll have to click on the link yourself, and use your own eyeballs to read it.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dfnj2015


Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is not exactly a right wing policy. Conservatism means preserving the status quo. Leftist want to redistribute power to the citizen.


Isn't it odd then that some of the biggest proponents of auditing the Federal Reserve are right leaning libertarians such as Ron Paul and many of the people desperately trying to avoid it are liberals? Your point is valid though, that should be the type of thing democrats do, and there are some rare ducks like Bernie Sanders who have the balls to make it happen... but we all know how the DNC treats those who really stand for the people and not their own self interests.


Even though I am a leftist liberal I think you and I are a lot closer on some of these issues that you might initially think. I too like many things Ron Paul was saying. And yes, of course I liked Bernie Sanders a million times more than Hillary.

You criticisms of Democrats I think also apply to Republicans. What you call government I call corporatism. I often like to show this quote:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

The problems with our country are not rocket science. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. There are NO free markets. The corporations or CEOs own the lobbyists. And the lobbyists own the politicians.

I love the idea of the free market wringing out the inefficiencies of CEO pay. Or the idea that with a free market products and services will improve because of competition. The problem is, in reality, we do not have free markets. All we have are cartels and monopolies charging anything they want with lower quality for profit. Also, wages take a hit because there's not enough organic growth because companies are shut out of markets by excessive regulations designed to keep out competition. Again, you criticize government as the problem. I criticize corporations as the problem because corporations ARE the government.


originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Also being conservative does not mean "preserving the status quo", it means having a respect for tradition and culture in preference of radical progressive change. Also one does not necessarily need to be conservative to be right leaning, I do not consider myself a conservative, I am not religious, I don't care what gay people do, I'm a futurist, but that doesn't mean I have no respect for culture and tradition, I try to keep a balanced perspective instead of falling into one of the extremes. Please see: Far-Left Progressivism.


Do you want less government so the rich can get richer? Or do you want MORE government to ensure free markets? Or do you want MORE government to protect workers from wage exploitation?


I just don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Wanting less government has nothing to do with wanting to get richer, it's about preventing a nanny state which tries to control every aspect of our lives, it's about a desire to have personal freedom and liberty free from a tyrannical government. Furthermore, a free market has always been exactly that, one which is free from a high degree of government regulations and control. When the government has a high degree of control over the market you have socialism. Regulations are of course necessary to prevent crime but there comes a point where the regulations are nothing but a burden to the free market. It's a very complex topic because you need to have quite a deep understanding of economics to fully grasp why I believe free market economics leads to the highest standard of living overall.


Let me explain what I am talking about. You can't talk about tyrannical government without talking about tyrannical corporations. You can't talk about excessive taxes without talking about the cost of goods and services. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What does matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay.

Since corporate cartels and monopolies ARE the government, every worker is living with poverty wages because the cartels and monopolies have no competition. Every worker in the US is forced to shop at the "company store" of colluding corporations. The collective company store is turning all the workers into economic slaves.

You say you believe free markets lead to the highest standard of living but I would argue you have absolutely no evidence. In times like this when the corporations ARE the government, and the profit motive is the absolute driving force in public policy, then as a liberal, I have to turn to FDR to define what it means to be a liberal:



An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.


You and are I much closer in our views that it appears. We just have slightly different language. If you accept my idea of corporatism, and that the corporations ARE the government, then all the madness we see in government makes sense. The regulations exist to preserve monopolies and cartels. Or the laws are in place to create the cartels and monopolies in the first place.

Whatever the case, the fact is every year the rich get richer and the middle class gets driven deeper and deeper into poverty wages. I get the idea of libertarianism. It's just that I've never seen in my lifetime. It terms of the purchasing power of the worker making the median wage, there has been only one 4 year period where the number of slices of bread $1 could buy actually increased. And that was Bill Clinton's second term. Other than, the workers have been taking it up the butt for almost 60 or 70 years.

Marx always said laissez-faire capitalism is always followed by communism. This is because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency collapse. Once the government's currency collapses to nothing in value, people in the bread lines would demand MORE government not less. See you in the breadlines comrades!


edit on 5-6-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Do you really think talking about his militia in a public speech is something he would do if he planned to commit violent acts? That article is clearly heavily biased and completely one sided, they even mention the fake crap about him abusing his wife. This quote from the article is just utterly insidious:


FEAR IS CORROSIVE, A slow-acting poison. Schaeffer Cox was afraid—of the Office of Children’s Services, of the courts and the police, of the supposed six-man death squad from Aurora—and he instilled that fear in his followers.

I just finished watching his lecture "The Solution to Reclaiming Liberty", over an hour and a half long, and I didn't feel any type of fear being instilled into me, it was quite an inspiring talk actually, and the only time he mentioned using force was against a tyrannical government, but he followed it up by saying he believes non-violent solutions are the best answer, and that governments usually collapse in on themselves anyway so we may not have to do anything at the end of the day.

Or how about this nugget:

We could have had them killed within 20 minutes of giving the order. But they’re people too. And they’ve got just as much ability to repent as anybody else and there’s no sense in it.

Why even mention such a thing unless they had planned to kill them? The only reason they weren't taken out is because the plan was interrupted, now they're trying to play it off like "oh yeah we're so forgiving and nice, even though these guys hadn't actually done anything despite us constantly egging them on, we're such good people for not taking that kill shot". This article is pure disinformation at it's best.
edit on 5/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


The problem is, in reality, we do not have free markets. All we have are cartels and monopolies charging anything they want with lower quality for profit. Also, wages take a hit because there's not enough organic growth because companies are shut out of markets by excessive regulations designed to keep out competition. Again, you criticize government as the problem. I criticize corporations as the problem because corporations ARE the government.

I completely agree, except that you cannot have a corpocracy without a large government which can subsidize monopolies and keep competitors at bay. If a large business is failing, such as a major bank, they just bail them out so that they cannot fail, and every large business becomes too big to fail. And as you said, excessive regulations can make it extremely difficult for new businesses to enter the playing field.


Since corporate cartels and monopolies ARE the government, every worker is living with poverty wages because the cartels and monopolies have no competition.

Well maybe if we had less regulations and it was easier to start a new business then more people could do it and if they believe most businesses don't pay enough they could try to set a better example. The only thing a high minimum wage will do is hurt the economy because existing small businesses may not be able to afford it and people will be less motivated to start new businesses. Also people should have the self respect to not work for slave wages, the fact they are willing to demean themselves like that makes it possible in the first place. Your argument is essentially that people are too dumb so we need the government to protect them from themselves, it's the same old nanny state rhetoric.

Furthermore, thew only reason people are able to amass so much wealth in the first places is because we live under a system where new money is constantly injected into the system to keep it liquid. If there was a limited money supply which was unable to expand infinitely then we wouldn't have super rich people hoarding wealth, they'd have to make sure to pay people much more fairly in order to keep money flowing through the economy and keep people spending money at their businesses, because if no one has any money to spend they wont be making any profit.


It terms of the purchasing power of the worker making the median wage, there has been only one 4 year period where the number of slices of bread $1 could buy actually increased. And that was Bill Clinton's second term. Other than, the workers have been taking it up the butt for almost 60 or 70 years.

Please observe this chart:



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Corruption is mighty when the mighty are corrupted.

This chap is mauled and chewed by the deep state - which NOBODY seems to be able to clean up.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a commission to look into these dealings... Stinks DNC here...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join