Who then is the criminal one that swore an oath and doesnt know its intent or the one that is forced to obey unauthorized laws that contradict the oath and law that he swore to uphold? If the law enforcers are considered above the law, should it not come with a higher level of accountability?
Thursday, April 5, 2012
What if law enforcers don’t know the law?
I was cruising down the street on Overland the other day thinking about how screwed up our country is, as I usually do when I looked to my right and saw a law enforcement officer driving at inconsistent speeds as if he were distracted by something . Monitoring his driving for a few minutes I realized, at closer look, he appeared attentively looking at his mounted laptop!
The hair on the back of my neck stood on end immediately as I thought of the government’s continual control in the lives of normal unsuspecting inhabitants of Idaho as they implement various restrictions to control what we do in our cars like the texting ban. This bothered me so much I immediately called the local law enforcement entity to inquire how this can be.
I asked dispatch, “ Ma’am, as someone extremely interested in law and how it is applied and viewed by various governing entities, I do, from time to time, like to inquire about issues that come to mind and wondered if you could answer a few questions for me.”
As she accepted willingly, I continued… “The reason for my call is that I have been driving next to an officer for several minutes and noticed that he has been varying his speed as he appears distracted by his laptop. My question is that as I am aware of law enforcements support of measures to restrict distractions in the car by implementing texting bans and others, how is it that our law enforcement is not privy to the same laws that apply to the people?” She appeared stunned and apparently didn’t know what to say so she asked if it were ok to have someone return my call.
I figured that since she was nice I would also mention ” in my experience with law enforcement over the last few years I am disappointed that they are no longer friendly as they once were. I understand their job is difficult but by creating such a cold personae, it further divides the law enforcement between the people creating an “us vs. Them” mentality which becomes very uncomfortable and can be considered manipulative for those that not only have respect for our law enforcement but pay their salary and their retirement benefits as well.”
She, still friendly and apparently understanding, stated again that she would have someone call me back; I was thankful but was reluctant to think I would receive a call back from anyone, I thanked her for her time, asked her if I were respectful and when she stated I was, we ended the call.
To my surprise, today I get a call from not just dispatch or a patrol officer but one of the highest ranking officials in the department, I was surprised and elated! He even told me how lucky I was to receive a call from him!
When he introduced himself, he was cordial and sounded like someone that cared about my concerns which were welcome.
He began by stating that my question had been considered to be answered by others but would be most appropriately answered by him so I began…
“Sir, I am a tax paying law abiding person that has a passion for law and history and I like to try to understand what law is and how it is applied by various government entities and I had a question that I felt was legitimate and wondered if someone could help me understand it, he seemed engaged so I continued…
“ I was driving down the road the other day when I noticed that one of the officers appeared distracted by his laptop driving at varying speeds and excessive brake lighting in traffic and wondered how it is that the legislature can create a law, that law enforcement supports, that applies to some people but not all of them, specifically, how is it that laws can restrict the people but somehow exempt from law enforcement? (Are they now above the law? Aren’t all laws to apply to all people and isn’t the job of government entities to protect the rights of the people and not restrict them?)
He stated that originally the laws created applied to everyone but he had the restriction overturned as it applied to law enforcement because laptops are how they get their information. (so one high ranking law enforcement official can overturn a law that still applies to the people that they have been supposedly given the authority to fine the people on a law that they are exempt from? Don’t the taxpayers also receive their information from their cell phones and can be just as important as an emergency? Furthermore, doesn’t government only have the power to do what we can only do to each other?
I asked him if he took an oath and if he remembered it and asked him “If you took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United states of America, the constitution and the laws of the state of Idaho what do you do when one, few or many of the laws violate or are contrary to either one constitution of both, which do you adhere to?” He stated:
“That’s what the Supreme Court is for!” When this statement registered in my mind, fear settled in my bones knowing that we are in deep trouble in this country! Not only was he a high ranking official that was entrusted to protect our rights, elected by the people but has violated his oath because that has no idea what his oath means or the original intent of the document that he swore an oath to. This should strike the fear in the people of Idaho and the nation in a big way and has huge repercussions to the people as our trusted officials continue to restrict the rights of the people and not even know it!
If we can no longer challenge authority, holding our government accountable, how will we know they have our best interest at heart? If those we have entrusted to know the law do not know the law or the difference between freedom and security and believe the Supreme Court has supreme authority to determine the rights of man, abandoning the three branches of government and the “checks and balances” believing we are a democracy rather than a constitutional republic designed to limit government to protect the freedom of the people, would they then not see a difference between the supreme court and an English tyrant king? If they do not see the difference, were we as immigrants just wasting our time when we fled the tyrant king of Great Britain in search of freedom from such oppression? Shall we then prefer a king and is a king any different than a supreme court when its authority can never be challenged?
How sad it is when we in America, with all the sacrifices that have been made for freedom and liberty and justice for all, can be snubbed and blatantly disrespected by ignorant Americans and American governing entities promulgated by our Marxist public schools and still partake in the traditions for the sake of that freedom like the belief we are the land of the free, when we most assuredly are not!
It brings me to tears when I think about how off track we are.
How can we respect an entity that has no respect for those who have entrusted them to protect them?
How can “we the people” that have created government, and contained government through a written constitution begin to re-educate a government that obviously doesn’t know or care for people it funds?
How can we, respectfully, enter into dialogue to begin to change the hearts and minds of the government we created to tell them how far they have strayed from the original intent established by our Founding fathers and not be considered “Domestic terrorists” by law enforcement as defined by the Department of Homeland Security as they continually violate the rights of the people criminalizing them at the desire of our legislatures or by supreme court decree when they were never given such authority?
For anyone that reads this far, if you disagree, may I ask you to consider, simply for educational purposes, an open challenge, anywhere, anytime in public or private at the place of your choosing to debate your worldview and mine as mine is based on years of study in American History, constitutional and common law based on the foundation of Gods law vs the random and ever changing oppressive rules and laws of man that have never kept any society free but subjected, as history proves, to absolute despotism. For those that are short sighted or unaware, our present system is set up to fail, to criminalize its citizens and no amount of legislation can fix it. The key is to return to the principles set forth by those who had more wisdom in that generation than all generations that have succeeded them.
If this appears like a plea, it is. God help us!