I recently spent the better part of a day observing a memorial service for four murdered Police Officers from the city of Lakewood, Washington. A few days after that ceremony, two more officers were shot just a few miles away from the first ambush, and one died of his wounds. Only a few weeks before these events, two Seattle officers were ambushed, and one killed, at a stop light.
Perhaps it's because of my background in the history of totalitarian states that I see the attacks on these eight officers as just the beginning of a conflict that may soon confront our entire law enforcement community.
In the 1920's and 1930's Germany was a constitutional republic, like the US, struggling through economic hard times. Like the US today, the German people were divided into a conservative camp...who wished to make their constitution work and to weather the economic storm...and those on the left, who wished to bring about a radical new form of government with little or no resemblance to the old order. They slathered at the idea of "redistributive justice" much as similar types do today.
Though they only received some 30% plus of the national vote, The Socialist Workers Party (the N.A.Z.I.) managed to manipulate their candidate, Adolf Hitler, into the number one seat in the administration. From that position, he was able to eradicate democratic institutions and eventually take total control of the government.
One of the stories of that struggle, largely untold, was that of German police officers and what happened to them.
Like our law enforcement community today, those officers were protectors of their constitution, generally conservative and law-abiding, and sworn to uphold the constitutionally elected government. This created a problem for Herr Hitler and his minions as much of what they needed to do was unconstitutional and even entailed a good deal of violence and murder.
A struggle ensued between these forces...the conservatives in the citizenry, protected largely by the police forces, and those wanting revolution and pushing for the totalitarian control which they felt would empower them personally. That group was in opposition to constitutional law enforcement.
Hitler's followers were the displaced, the less fortunate, criminals of all stripes, malcontents, sadists, and psycopaths. Politicians who use the tactics of class conflict have always taken advantage of such people to create anarchy, to put together street organizations, and to carry out the dirty, but necessary, acts of violence and sedition necessary to create a crisis situation. Such a crisis would give the government the needed excuse to declare martial law, or create new and more powerful law enforcement agencies manned by their lackeys, or even to cancel or suspend elections.
But first, they would have to deal with the old law enforcement community...made up of loyal citizens who would, in the end, refuse to do things like search homes for firearms, or kidnap political targets, or sack and burn blocks of stores and businesses. In fact, these police professionals would try and stop such activities, and in the end they tried to stand firm despite orders from above.
Hitler knew he had to deal with the law enforcement community in Germany...and he did so. He used them against the German people as long as he could, but when officers finally rebelled he had to bring out the thugs. First, of course, he set the stage by denigrating police officers with insults and snide insinuations (recall Obama's remarks about police officers "being stupid"). He appointed staff members with criminal backgrounds, or radicals who shared a dislike for law enforcement personnel.
Knowing what happened then...seeing how today there are groups hailing killers of police officers as heroes while attempting to protect and hide them...when coupled with current political winds makes me wonder about what is to come.
A shocking number of appointees who make up the new administration in WA DC come from criminal backgrounds, even having served prison terms, or "academic" backgrounds where they openly celebrated their hatred of law enforcement personnel. The criminal community has taken notice...and they appear to be emboldened. Many of them, when arrested, smirkingly announce they will not be in prison for long. They threaten the arresting officers, prosecutors, judges, and jury members. They act arrogantly and state confidently that "the tables are turning" and soon they will be in charge and that people in the community will pay.
I recall a photo montage I saw, during the last election cycle, of one hundred mug shots of recently arrested criminals in Chicago...each wearing an Obama t-shirt. A weird coincidence...just like the weird coincidence that recently bills were introduced in Congress giving prison inmates the right to vote? Just like the 9th circuit court in San Francisco overturning state laws barring felons from voting?
The 9th circuit opinion will likely be overturned...a large percentage of that whackey trio's opinions are...but the fact such a off the wall case was even heard at that level is disturbing to citizens and energizing to criminals.
Officers I know well tell me there is a new attitude on the street...a dangerous attitude. And they tell me of rumors of layoffs in their departments, as well as actual salary reductions and increased micro-management by political hacks. A number of states are preparing to start early release programs from prisons, for budgetary reasons of course, and bills are in committee which would give amnesty to all illegal immigrants along with immediate voting rights...and a shocking percentage of those folks are gang or cartel members.
All of this may sound pretty alarmist, after all this is the United States of America, where the vast majority of citizens are solidly behind our law enforcement personnel and for the constitution. But those same conditions existed in Germany in the 1920's!
Law abiding citizens are being bypassed on a number of issues...being ignored on health care and cap and trade...and the millions of phone calls and emails don't seem to slow down the more demagogic members of congress. Will they eventually take the same "ignore the will of the people" stance on maintaining our police departments, or keeping felons in prison, or the issues of giving the vote to illegals and criminals? And will these actions by the most corrupt congress in a century be the gateway to an assault on law enforcement personnel?
To get to us...tyrants have to first get through the "thin blue line" of police officers who protect and serve their communities. I don't believe tyrants can do it. For one thing, our officers don't stand alone. If the time comes I truly believe the American people will rise up and back-up their police. The officers I talk to believe that as well...and they actually represent us more truly than many of our elected officials. If the time comes...I believe it will be the politicos who will back down and leave the field. For that matter...I don't think many of them will be in office after the 2010 elections to make the attempt.
I'm all for easing them all into retirement...before we lose any more of our gallant officers and any more of our constitution.
The Professor
When Agendas Run Amock
Imagine you are forced into the witness protection program in order to keep your family safe and alive.
You have to change your name. All of your family have to change their names. Literally overnight you are packed off to a new town...you never again can call or see your parents, your siblings, your friends...they're not even allowed to know what happened to you. You can't even receive news of them.
When your parents get old and need your help...you can't be there. You won't even know about it. The slightest security leak, or slip-up, can get you killed. Your entire world is gone and you can never get it back.
That's what it can be like if you serve as a juror on a trial against a well-connected crime figure. The only way you can be an impartial juror, is to have you and your family's safety guaranteed beyond doubt. Otherwise...someone out of the twelve members of that jury will refuse to convict out of fear they or a family member will pay the ultimate price.
Now imagine you are on the jury trying five terrorists who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. If they are convicted, an entire international terrorist organization will dedicate itself to killing you, your immediate family, your extended family, your friends and co-workers, and anyone they might consider whose death would give you pain.
Remember they have millions of fanatical members...people willing to strap on suicide vests and jump on school busses. People willing to fly airplanes into buildings. Can you imagine any way your entire sphere of family and friends can be protected...not just for a few months, or years, but for the next few decades. Because these fanatics will target all of them for as long as it takes. They will never quit.
Now let's be brutally realistic! The defense attornies will "leak" your name and your address to the press within a matter of days. They will do so knowing full well it would destroy any chance the prosecution has of getting a conviction. Within hours of that leak reporters and bloggers will spill that information across the world wide net. You're sitting on the jury...you know what will happen if the terrorists are convicted...what do you do?
Be real honest! Do you truly believe that all twelve of you, no matter how strong the evidence, will convict? Won't there be at least one hold out? Someone so terrified they simply will not budge...and won't the remainder eventually see that the only way out of a hung jury is to go with a not-guilty verdict?
The same issue was raised half a century ago when Nazi war criminals were put on trial. That is why military tribunals were used to dispense justice...and why members of our government have been trying to start the same process for the 9/11 terrorists being held today by the US Military. For years now they have been blocked from moving forward by organizations like the ACLU.
So why did the Obama administration kowtow to such organizations and go an entirely different route? This last week they announced these terrorists would be tried as civilians...and given the full protection of the US Constitution as if they were US citizens. It means they would have to be convicted by a jury of twelve Americans.
There is obviously zero logic at work here...so we have to ask "what are the reasons for this rather radical turn of events and this decision?"
There are a number of possible answers; all of which may be a part of why this move was made. Let's get started by painting the scene:
Everyone understands that the Obama crew has a deeply rooted hatred for Bush and his administration, the military and military people, the CIA, all and any wars, and the entire concept of the war against terror. These terrorists were captured on the battlefield...not properly "arrested"...and were sent to Gitmo instead of a civilian prison where they could have been protected from "abuse" and "torture."
There is nothing more this group of malcontents wants more than to sling mud at all the institutions and persons they hate so deeply. A public trial of these "victims of torture" whereby the terrorists can have a forum to lie and make claims against the US, the military, and US citizens is just too much an opportunity for these whiners in the White House to pass up.
Worse; there is a very real possibility of acquittal on a technicality...such as their not being read their rights when captured on the battlefield...or a hung jury. The failure to find them guilty will be tossed back at the Bush administration...it's all their fault...they should have morandized the prisoners in Afghanistan...they should have built a forensic case on site...created a chain of evidence...etcetera ad nauseam. US citizens will be outraged...and a certain number will put the blame on Bush and his people rather than where it rests.
It's almost as if this was the goal of the ACLU and friends from the first...and perhaps it was. Unfortunately for them, we the people are not quite the fools they take us to be. They spend so much time with the easily manipulated that they fail to see the groundswell of anger already building among normal folks.
Polls show the vast majority of Americans want these war criminals tried in a military tribunal. If Obama's people turn this into a circus, which they will without a doubt, and fail to get convictions and harsh sentences (such as death), this will turn on them...and will probably turn hard.
We may be beginning to see how vengeful idealogues can out-maneuver themselves...I believe they are finally doing so on the health care take-over issue...and how they may just be their own worst enemies. Let's watch what happens... and be ready to remind our friends and acquaintances that "we told you so."
The Professor
You have to change your name. All of your family have to change their names. Literally overnight you are packed off to a new town...you never again can call or see your parents, your siblings, your friends...they're not even allowed to know what happened to you. You can't even receive news of them.
When your parents get old and need your help...you can't be there. You won't even know about it. The slightest security leak, or slip-up, can get you killed. Your entire world is gone and you can never get it back.
That's what it can be like if you serve as a juror on a trial against a well-connected crime figure. The only way you can be an impartial juror, is to have you and your family's safety guaranteed beyond doubt. Otherwise...someone out of the twelve members of that jury will refuse to convict out of fear they or a family member will pay the ultimate price.
Now imagine you are on the jury trying five terrorists who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. If they are convicted, an entire international terrorist organization will dedicate itself to killing you, your immediate family, your extended family, your friends and co-workers, and anyone they might consider whose death would give you pain.
Remember they have millions of fanatical members...people willing to strap on suicide vests and jump on school busses. People willing to fly airplanes into buildings. Can you imagine any way your entire sphere of family and friends can be protected...not just for a few months, or years, but for the next few decades. Because these fanatics will target all of them for as long as it takes. They will never quit.
Now let's be brutally realistic! The defense attornies will "leak" your name and your address to the press within a matter of days. They will do so knowing full well it would destroy any chance the prosecution has of getting a conviction. Within hours of that leak reporters and bloggers will spill that information across the world wide net. You're sitting on the jury...you know what will happen if the terrorists are convicted...what do you do?
Be real honest! Do you truly believe that all twelve of you, no matter how strong the evidence, will convict? Won't there be at least one hold out? Someone so terrified they simply will not budge...and won't the remainder eventually see that the only way out of a hung jury is to go with a not-guilty verdict?
The same issue was raised half a century ago when Nazi war criminals were put on trial. That is why military tribunals were used to dispense justice...and why members of our government have been trying to start the same process for the 9/11 terrorists being held today by the US Military. For years now they have been blocked from moving forward by organizations like the ACLU.
So why did the Obama administration kowtow to such organizations and go an entirely different route? This last week they announced these terrorists would be tried as civilians...and given the full protection of the US Constitution as if they were US citizens. It means they would have to be convicted by a jury of twelve Americans.
There is obviously zero logic at work here...so we have to ask "what are the reasons for this rather radical turn of events and this decision?"
There are a number of possible answers; all of which may be a part of why this move was made. Let's get started by painting the scene:
Everyone understands that the Obama crew has a deeply rooted hatred for Bush and his administration, the military and military people, the CIA, all and any wars, and the entire concept of the war against terror. These terrorists were captured on the battlefield...not properly "arrested"...and were sent to Gitmo instead of a civilian prison where they could have been protected from "abuse" and "torture."
There is nothing more this group of malcontents wants more than to sling mud at all the institutions and persons they hate so deeply. A public trial of these "victims of torture" whereby the terrorists can have a forum to lie and make claims against the US, the military, and US citizens is just too much an opportunity for these whiners in the White House to pass up.
Worse; there is a very real possibility of acquittal on a technicality...such as their not being read their rights when captured on the battlefield...or a hung jury. The failure to find them guilty will be tossed back at the Bush administration...it's all their fault...they should have morandized the prisoners in Afghanistan...they should have built a forensic case on site...created a chain of evidence...etcetera ad nauseam. US citizens will be outraged...and a certain number will put the blame on Bush and his people rather than where it rests.
It's almost as if this was the goal of the ACLU and friends from the first...and perhaps it was. Unfortunately for them, we the people are not quite the fools they take us to be. They spend so much time with the easily manipulated that they fail to see the groundswell of anger already building among normal folks.
Polls show the vast majority of Americans want these war criminals tried in a military tribunal. If Obama's people turn this into a circus, which they will without a doubt, and fail to get convictions and harsh sentences (such as death), this will turn on them...and will probably turn hard.
We may be beginning to see how vengeful idealogues can out-maneuver themselves...I believe they are finally doing so on the health care take-over issue...and how they may just be their own worst enemies. Let's watch what happens... and be ready to remind our friends and acquaintances that "we told you so."
The Professor
Warning Letter from a Law Instructor
I felt this warning from Michael Connelly, a retired attorney and constitutional law instructor, deserved reprinting. Keep in mind this is his review of HR 3200...which was about half as long and convoluted as the current Senate health care bill. We must be emailing and calling our senators during this vital moment in history and urging them to vote down this travesty.
The Warning:
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.”
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
The Warning:
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.”
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
