KIDO. With another county sheriff

KIDO with another local sheriff…

 

If I say “War on Drugs” can you guess which sheriff I am speaking of?

 

This morning on the radio, I gave Kevin a break in calling in but it doesn’t mean that I was not attentive to the conversation he was having with the sheriff. As a matter of fact, once the sheriff started speaking, I immediately had the extreme desire to call in and ask questions. Is it just me?  I am a bit confused and a bit frustrated…

 

It seems that the sheriff believes we have a drug problem here and that it is his number one priority, the question is, although I agree it is a problem, I believe it may pose a greater threat to liberty than to address the problem. Is it relative in terms of defining the issue and in fact, ignoring the root of the issue?

 

Is the war on drugs really a “War on Drugs” or a war on the people? Is it the peace officers job to declare a war on inanimate objects that can’t fight back? Does not this war on drugs in reality elevate the authority of the peace officers over the people they serve in that this war has no defined terms and can be arbitrarily defined by the servant rather than the master?

 

The sheriff will content his job is to uphold the laws of the state of Idaho. Should he also uphold the state and federal constitution as well? What happens if one is in complete contradiction to the other? How can a constitution that was created preserve the rights of the people by limiting government be consistent with the state statutes that, more times than not, restrict those rights without regard or, in many cases any understanding of the constitution? And how is it consistent with the constitution since most laws created are not challenged constitutionally before they are created and written by elected officials without any understanding of the constitution?

 

What is law? What is lawful and legal? What is real “law” and “color of Law” What is a peace officer? Do they or should they have limitations? If they do, what are they?

 

Is law to prevent crime or to punish those that are wrongdoers that break the law?

If law, as understood today, is to prevent crime and to protect us from ourselves then logically the more laws that people write the more peaceful of a society would exist. Why then with the multitude of endless laws do we feel the continual need to make more when making laws obviously do not prevent crime? The problem is, as many Peace officers are well intended as they are, have lost sight of what the purpose of law is and the limitations on government or never learned it. If our Law enforcement” really believes in obeying the law, why don’t they obey the law themselves first since they were the ones that were charged with knowing the law and taking an oath knowing the law and understanding the limitations of their position? The fact is that any law created could only be a law if it is consistent with the constitution and any law that violates this no law but somehow the “law enforcement” upholds the law anyway?

 

What is the difference between lawful and legal? Simply put, Lawful is the proper application and creation of law,” legal” is what is created but under the color of law” which really isn’t law at all but it is believed that it is. What is “legal” is “color of law” and what is “lawful” is “law”, one that was properly created, consistent with the preservation of liberty and consistent with the constitution or those that are not.

 

Peace officers were created to keep the peace, they were to be present and available to be summoned when needed “lawfully” not to use high tech equipment and work with the legislature by upholding laws that enslave their people under “The color of law”. They were to preserve the rights of the people, not to violate them. It is impossible to create a law for everything on one hand while declaring we are a free people on the other.

 

A free society is a society is one that takes personal responsibility for their own actions with love and respect for one another, a problem for sure and one I believe that our officers would agree. A free society is also one based on intelligence and understanding of individual rights and the vigilance to hold government accountable and restrained to their enumerated powers, perhaps the bigger of two problems because this struggle directly pins government against its people, where the government has become the master rather than the servant. The true war is not one on drugs; it is a war on moral relativity and one between freedom and security.

 

If we have given up our freedom for security, it elevates the authority without limitations on what government can do, since it now defines those terms.

 

If we hold fast to freedom, it requires intelligence and vigilance to limit government and an understanding of when those limitations have been breached with an adherence of written law defined by the founding documents and the people before it should be defined by government! It is not subject to opinion.

 

In other words, we cannot remain a free or a peaceful society if we do not take personal responsibility for our actions and do not understand how to hold government accountable.

 

It may be difficult to believe but I actually love my peace officers and I support and pray for them because as society is now in free fall, these guys are nuts to do what they do.

 

These officers tell me about what they see and about how horrible it is, I know how they feel when they want to keep us safe. Although I appreciate that desire, the problem is, in those efforts to keep us safe, it requires that the people give up their freedom by submitting to those laws created to keep us safe that encroaches upon the liberty and preservation of freedom that undermines the purpose of the creation of Peace officers.

 

Please help me reach out to our officers, to let them know I care about them but I also care about my freedom too. Is there a common ground, I’m going to try to find out.