We must take a serious look at our laws and how they are enforced

Most people are for law and order, and most obey the laws that keep society functioning. And most have great respect for the men and women who have the sometimes-dangerous job of enforcing those laws.

That said, some laws are just plain dumb and should be done away with, and what is more important, there are so many laws, rules and regulations today that no one can know all the decrees from the federal, state and local governments that affect him or her, and therefore it is impossible to obey them all. This over-regulated environment puts each of us in the position of likely being in violation of one or more of them at any given moment.

What's worse than so many decrees from so many sources, however, is what seems to be a growing tendency of law enforcement agencies at all levels to imagine that even tiny infractions warrant the most dramatic responses.

Case in point: After making a purchase at a Charlottesville, Va. grocery store one night, a 20-year-old University of Virginia student and two roommates were approached in their car by a group of six men and one woman in street clothes. "They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform," she recalled in a written account of the incident.

Police say one of the group jumped on the hood of her car. The girl said one drew a gun, and they tried to break out car windows. Unsure who they were, the girl tried to flee the dark parking lot and called 911. Given the circumstances and stories of people being assaulted by phony police officers, who could blame her?

It turned out to be a squad of plainclothes state Alcoholic Beverage Control officers who suspected the girl had purchased beer in the store – she hadn’t – and was under-age. She spent the night in jail as a result.

Question: Who at the ABC thought this procedure actually made sense? Is it reasonable for a squad of plainclothes agents to approach three female college students in a dark parking lot, fail to adequately identify themselves, point a gun at them, jump on their car and try to break out the windows because they think one of them had bought beer that she might not be old enough to purchase?

Prosecutors dropped charges against the young woman, describing her as having panicked at the sight of plainclothes agents who approached her and her roommates.

Case 2: When the Leander, Texas police wanted to serve a warrant on Bradly Simpson, they sent officers to his home. When no one responded to the knock on the front door, a couple of officers walked around the side of the house toward the back yard whereupon they saw two German Shepards coming toward them. One officer pulled his gun and fired three shots. The police said the dog was growling and aggressively coming at them. Fortunately, the officer’s aim was not good and only one of the dogs was hit, but only wounded.

After that spectacle, the police were unable to serve the warrant because they were at the wrong address, and in the wrong neighborhood. Worse than that, not far from where the dog was shot the home owners’ terminally-ill six year-old grandchild was playing.

Worse, yet, the home owners said neither dog was aggressive, that they were merely curious about who was visiting their home, and had never behaved the way the police claimed. And, as it turns out, the lady of the house is a professional dog trainer, and therefore knows about dog behavior, and furthermore noted that there are routinely customers visiting her home, so strangers don’t spook her dogs.

And what heinous crime prompted the police to go to Mr. Simpson’s home to serve the warrant? He had an expired vehicle registration.

Leander police officials say what happened was "an unfortunate accident." Wrong: What happened is that the police screwed up.

The number of rogue law enforcement personnel that intentionally abuse their authority and position is surely very small. Nevertheless, instances of over-aggressive law enforcement action and plain dumb mistakes like these are indefensible and intolerable, and there appears to be a growing attitude toward over-aggressive behavior.  

To maintain the public trust and respect government and law enforcement are going to have to stop doing stupid and dangerous things like these examples, and even worse incidents that have caused serious injury and even death for innocent citizens.

Solutions? Do we really need so many law enforcement officers that seven of them can spend nights sitting around in one store parking lot waiting to catch an under-age person buying beer? Does an expired registration really justify armed police visiting the vehicle owner’s home?

What about accountability? Officials that exercise bad judgment or act rashly must be disciplined, encouraging them to carefully consider how to properly and safely do their jobs, and also demonstrating that public officials really take seriously their duty to adequately serve the people they work for.

Something must be done, and the sooner, the better.

Obama’s 'Truth Squad' Threatens Freedom of Speech

A bold maneuver, unprecedented in American politics, has pitted the Obama campaign against freedom of speech. Missouri authorities will pursue criminal charges against those who speak “falsely” against Barack Obama.

Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.” (From a statement issued by Governor Matt Blunt on Sept. 24)

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, both members of The Obama Truth Squad, have threatened to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama. Some say that such threats by Missouri authorities to pursue criminal charges violate civil rights. Many see this as an attempt by the Obama campaign at voter intimidation.

KMOV has a Sept. 23 video news report on this story. The report clearly shows involvement by the Obama campaign. This is an excerpt from the KVOV report:

“Sen Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the Presidential campaign . . . Prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri are joining something called the Barack Obama Truth Squad . . .”

According to Saint Louis CofCC Blog the attempts by the Obama campaign at voter intimidation are clear, but in actuality “virtually nobody that levels criticism at Barack Obama can be charged criminally for doing so.”

The implication here is also clear — if people with badges and guns are getting involved, they want Obama critics to shut up lest some cop will arrest them and send them to jail. We also found out from this news clip that this is indeed all at the behest of the Obama campaign. . .

Based on the 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision, New York Times vs Sullivan, Saint Louis CofCC Blog goes on to explain that if a “prosecutorial authority brings criminal libel charges against a defendant on behalf of a plaintiff, as McCulloch and Joyce are threatening to do, then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve out of twelve jurors that the defendant knowingly said or wrote something factually incorrect about the defendant.”

The two key concepts here are “knowingly” and “factual.” Successful civil libel lawsuits brought by public figures are exceedingly rare, because it’s very difficult to prove that the defendant “knowingly” said or wrote something factually incorrect. Criminal libel prosecutions thereof, because they require a unanimous jury and a higher legal standard of proof, are virtually impossible.

As for “factual,” it means that the statement made cannot relate to an opinion. If you say that Barack Obama isn’t really a Christian, that’s not a statement of fact, because religion is mostly subjective. The Catholic Church still really doesn’t consider Protestants to be Christians, and in some cases, some radical Protestants don’t think that Catholics are really Christians. Therefore, if one says that Barack Obama isn’t a Christian, it isn’t actionable, because it’s somebody’s opinion. Now, if Obama were a Catholic, and really was Confirmed as such, and someone for whom that it can be proven does know he is a Confirmed Catholic goes out and says that he isn’t, that’s actionable. The reason is that Confirmation in the Catholic Church is (usually) provable by ecclesiastical records.

Federal civil rights lawsuits could be brought against Missouri officials and the Obama campaign under several statutes such as the First Amendment Retaliation (under 42 USC Section 1983), or “under the KKK Act (42 USC Section 1985) – it is unlawful for two or more persons to form a conspiracy to use threats or intimidation to prevent the exercise of civil rights (including voting).”

Instapundit.com has listed several other attempts at free speech intimidation by the Obama campaign.

Stephen Kruiser of America Needs Me writes:

. . .There is a disturbing pattern of thuggish behavior by Obama and his supporters. Obama himself finally let the mask slip for a moment when he told supporters to go out and “get in peoples’ faces”. He then dispatched his minions to threaten and silence critics.

The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star has an editorial about the Obama campaign banning signs and banners during his rally Saturday at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia.

. . .Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally–or a McCain rally or a Nader rally–justify taking a little off the top of Americans’ most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for “security” reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no “part of the sign could be used as a weapon”–e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, “We encourage people to make signs at our events.” . . .

The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceable assembly, petition of the government. Will one who aspires to the title Defender of the Constitution begin inhibiting these First Freedoms even before he is in office--at a public university?

Some are drawing inferences that Obama’s Truth Squad is a precursor to Obama’s plan for a civilian national security force. In July World Net Daily wrote:

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. . . Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

Gatweay Pundit warns Obama Stalinist Police State Already Taking Form

. . .Reminiscent of the beginning of the Stalin purges, the Obama “Truth Squads” seem to be the beginning of Obama’s plan to end free speech and create a police state that is beholden only to its secular messiah. Note: Stalin’s purges were affected by his country-wide police forces to silence political opponents. The Obama campaign has also advised Missouri law enforcement throughout the state to look for anything that the Obama campaign determines a lie. . . One of the most frightening aspects of all of this—as if it could become any more horrific—is that Missouri law enforcement now appears to be following Obama’s marching orders and it is being allowed to get away with these gangster tactics! . .

Here’s the statement issued by Governor Matt Blunt on Sept. 24.

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Technorati Tags: Missouri,Virginia,law enforcement,intimidation,voter,vote,authorities,Barack Obama,Obama,Truth Squad,freedom of speech,1st Amendment,civil rights,civilian national security force,University of Mary Washington

Trackposted to http://morewhat.com/wordpress/?p=3214, Rosemary's Thoughts, Democrat=Socialist, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Public Corruption, What to Do?

By Jim Simpson

New revelations about Republican ties to convicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff have brought to the fore once again the unfortunate specter of public corruption as two congressmen, John T. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) were forced off their respective committees when it came to light they were under FBI investigation. It is a sad and by now all too familiar story. It is also infuriating because as a former White House budget analyst, I know full well that the kind of influence peddling highlighted in the Abramoff scandals is only noteworthy because Mr. Abramoff and his conservative clients got caught.

Congressional Democrats have built this kind of influence-peddling system into a well-oiled machine. It is what keeps them going. With Republicans it is a criminal action. With Democrats it is business-as-usual. Even when caught red-handed, like Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), with $90,000 cash in his freezer, or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with his blatantly corrupt land deal, they routinely slime their way out of it. While these stories did make their way into the media, “investigative” journalists seem to lose their ardor quickly when the target is one of their beloved fellow democrats, and the stories tend to die of neglect, or as with Harry Reid, get spun in the lawmaker’s favor.

In this situation, “investigative” journalism and “aggressive” law enforcement contributes to public corruption rather than preventing it. For if one party can manage to get away with it all the time, as the Democrats do, then going after the other party can only be seen as an exercise in power politics. That is, the law becomes merely a weapon used to eliminate political opponents rather than a standard by which all public officials must live. The Democrats' media and law enforcement friends in effect have become just another extension of the party. That is endemic public corruption defined.

I know what you’re thinking. “We all know about leftist media bias; that’s a given; but federal law enforcement? Come on!” you say.

Think again. As a budgeter for law enforcement agencies in both the elder Bush and Clinton administrations, I saw daily how law enforcement agencies became slavish lap dogs for favored Congressional and Senatorial appropriators. They work hard to please and impress, and love it when one of their operations gets highlighted in the press. For example, as I argued in a 1995 Washington Times article, I believe the Branch Davidian fiasco at Waco, TX was originally caused by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ desire to impress Congress with a big bust and thereby get the budgetary attention they felt they deserved.

In that case they got more than they bargained for. But Congress spendeth and Congress taketh away. Agencies thus develop over time a symbiotic relationship with Congressmen and Senators, helping to deliver votes by hiring agents in needy districts, throwing contracts to favored states and districts, etc. This is the real pork spending and there are few components of the federal budget that are not part of it. “Okay,” you respond. “That sounds plausible. But why should federal law enforcement agencies favor Democrats? Weren’t Republicans in charge of both houses for much of the past twelve years?”

Not really. Two reasons: 1. the sad fact is that all federal agencies are disproportionately peopled by democrats, the vast majority being liberal democrats. I would guess the ratio at the very least is 80% - 20% democrat/republican. If you remove DoD, it is probably closer to 95% democrat.

This is not entirely surprising. Democrats philosophically have much greater faith in government as a vehicle for social progress than republicans. Democrats are also much more ideologically driven, and recognize that packing agencies with their own kind is a strategy in its own right. That is a reason many democrat political appointees try to hang on to executive jobs when administrations change hands. Democrats are also much more likely to use ideological tests when hiring civil servants for key positions, despite the fact that it violates federal law.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a much greater faith in American free enterprise than our democratic counterparts. Despite Howard Dean’s blatantly dishonest slur, most republicans earn their money in private business and are not predisposed in any way toward government service, except perhaps in the military. For the most part such machinations as described above wouldn’t even occur to them, and Republicans are really only just beginning to catch on to the Democrats’ game.

Second, like their agency counterparts, Democrat politicians not only believe in government as a vehicle for change, they believe it is the only vehicle for change. It is all, repeat, ALL about control. They arrogate to themselves the right to use whatever methods necessary to deliver them the power necessary. They place democrat operatives in key agency positions and fight to keep them there.

They create bureaucracies immune from budget cuts, supervision, or even significant policy changes and fight savagely to keep it that way. They send out aggressive prosecutors on witch hunts with the express goal of smearing Republican opponents, especially effective ones, like Tom Delay, for example. They sick sympathetic prosecutors on Republican presidential appointees over frivolous or invented charges, knowing that even when the charges are ultimately dropped, their adversaries have been forced to exhaust time and money resources defending themselves in court.

During the Clinton administration, Hillary even used trumped up charges against completely innocent White House travel office employees, simply so she could stock the office with friends of hers. The Travel Office for God's sake! Lifelong employees of modest incomes were forced to defend themselves against a cabal of professional hatchetmen. Where was Hillary's compassion for the little guy there?

Democrats truly believe they can do anything. They do not believe the word “corruption” can even apply to them, since, according to Marx’s famous dictum, they only recognize that morality which furthers their cause. Thus, despite their blatant cronyism, nepotism and corruption, that I would argue goes right over the border into sedition, both Bill Clinton and more recently Nancy Pelosi, boldly pronounced that they would lead “the most ethical” administration and Congress respectively, in history. I’m sure they still believe it.

Agencies work against Republicans, in sometimes subtle, other times not-so-subtle ways, because having their own party back in power usually appeals to both ideological and self-serving calculations. Even those agency leaders not ideologically predisposed to leftist policies know that Democrats are the party to please because of their organizational skills, penetration in depth of all levels of government and ruthless approach to politics. Bureaucrats know that once firmly back in the saddle, Democrats will open the money spigot in ways that would impress even the most profligate Republican spendthrift. Indeed, with their new PAYGO rules in place, and now muzzling the Congressional Research Service’s reporting on earmarks, the Democrat Congress is set up to do just that.

And while there may be corruption in both Parties today, wait and see how bad things get if the Democrats have their way and Republicans once again become an impotent minority. If you recall, it was largely Democrat corruption that finally lost them Congress the last time. Lest we forget: those corrupt Democrats who missed the axe last time are the ones in charge now.

As I said last November 8th, the 2006 elections were a disaster of epic proportions. While some Republican congressmen allowed themselves to be seduced by the system, the entire national Democrat party is corrupt beyond salvaging. With a Republican majority, we as taxpayers got a temporary reprieve from the destructive, self-serving policies always pursued and once again being prepared for us by the new majority. If the current leadership has not made this fact completely transparent to you, then either you are on drugs, or you come from another planet.

Republicans must grab the initiative and retake Congress. President Bush must come out of his rabbit hole and confront these criminals head on. We are literally tottering at the abyss.

The Democrat majority is today pulling out all the stops to destroy this administration, even if it means endangering our troops and losing a war. Meanwhile they are preparing a destructive socialist agenda to impose on us, while flagrantly engaging in the unethical behavior they so hypocritically accuse Republicans of. They are aided and abetted by a sympathetic bureaucracy, while their media cronies run interference and cover their tails.

Through it all their belligerence makes unmistakably clear that there is no room for debate, compromise or moderation. Either you are with them, or you are an outcast - an alien in your own country. With their arrogant, slanderous slurs and kleptocratic plans they inflame the very divisions their destructive policies initially created and push our entire society closer and closer to anarchy.

In an earlier draft of this article, published prematurely by mistake at New Media Journal, I wistfully suggested that the President exercise his power to declare martial law and arrest the lot of them. But that it were so. While the President does have the constitutional authority to declare martial law during times of war and insurrection, he does not appear to have the legal authority to summarily arrest members of Congress.

Too bad…

But that puts us in a real quandary. For once in his life, Al Gore was correct when he said “there is no controlling legal authority…” Who polices Congress when it runs amuck as it surely has today? Who arrests traitors using the halls of Congress to shield and facilitate their nefarious activities? Who defends us from a nationwide subversive conspiracy, coordinated by powerful politicians and Wall Street billionaires? Are we approaching that point when we will have to take matters into our own hands? To paraphrase Jefferson, will the tree of liberty have to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots? Will the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment finally come to the fore? As early Supreme Court justice Joseph Story succinctly put it (emphasis mine):

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them..

I hope it doesn’t come to that. But corruption is a deadly disease, and when the body politic is shot through with it, a nation, even a great one like ours, cannot long survive. We will be pushed, pulled and torn apart until one of two things happens. Either a tyrant, homegrown or foreign, will seize the opportunity and take the reins of government, or the people, recognizing at last the danger, will rise up and conclusively demonstrate that an armed republic cannot be so abused.

Jim Simpson is a businessman, free-lance writer and former White House staff economist and budget analyst who among other duties, oversaw budgets of Treasury Department law enforcement agencies.

Permalink:http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/public-corruption-what-to-do.html

Trackback:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/1730080445982950213

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein... has no mercy, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: politics, political corruption, influence peddling, Jack Abramoff, John T. Doolittle, Rick Renzi, Republicans, Democrats, Harry Reid, journalism, law enforcement, socialist, left, leftist, leftist media bias, bureaucracies congress

About Border Angels

Originally posted at Right Truth

Border Angels. Their mission statement: "Saving People's Lives" - Making a difference! It sounds like a wonderful organization. But what do they actually do? They aid and assist illegal aliens as they enter America. They provide food, water, and clothing to people crossing the Southern border and entnering America illegally. It would sound pretty harsh if I said anything negative about people who simply provide food, water and clothing to people, wouldn't it?

They claim there have been unnecessary deaths as a result of extreme heat and cold weather conditions. I don't doubt that there have been deaths. But wouldn't this group better serve the U.S. by helping people get here legally? But I digress.

For the hot areas, three hundred and forty water stations have been installed in the Imperial Valley Desert and surrounding areas by Border Angels. Throughout the San Diego Mountain areas, winter clothing, food and water are placed in winter storage bins to help decrease negative health results from being exposed to the incredibly freezing temperature changes that exists in the San Diego County mountain areas during the Fall and Winter.

Here's what strikes me as very interesting: Permits have been obtained to install the water and winter stations. Good working relationships are maintained with the local government and authorities. WHAT? Don't even get me started on this. What they are doing is assisting lawbreakers, and they claim to have permits to do so? They have a good working relationship with local government and authorities?

Just which government and authorities are they in cahoots with? Does this include local law enforcement and politicians? If so, shouldn't we be going after those people? How can you give permits to aid criminals????

Border Angels was founded by Enrique Morones in 2001, and is a non-profit organization supporting humanity. Well, doesn't that just sound all sweet and cozy. No, they are supporting criminals who are breaking into our country.

Go ahead, call me an ogre, I don't care. Mr. Morones calls the Minutemen vigilantes and brags about shutting down the California Minutemen. That tells me all I need to know. His biography includes the following:

Enrique has been featured on NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, NPR, HBO, the TODAY SHOW, Univision's Don Francisco Presenta, Televisa Nacional, Rocio en Telemundo and countless other international media around the world. He frequently lectures and has more than held his own on shows with Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Minutemen founders and many other promoting the TRUTH about the migrant community and exposing the Vigilantes for who they really are. As a founder of GENTE UNIDA (a human rights border coalition of 65 Human Right Groups) in May of 2005, he lead the national effort against the Vigilante Minutemen, and soundly shut down the minutemen in California. He is recognized as one of the 100 most influential Latinos in the USA by HISPANIC BUSINESS MAGAZINE and his recognitions include being : FRONTLINE HUMAN RIGHTS international awardee for his lifelong dedication to Human Rights. (source)

I know I'm wasting my breath here talking about this group. No one will lift a hand to stop them. It would be politically incorrect to do so. Heaven forbid we look like we don't care for 'humanity'.