An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement by Mike Vanderboegh

[Sean K.]

 An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement

Article archived from sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com


“Choose this day whom you will serve.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement.

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity. -- William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming.”

smalline

 

Gentlemen and Ladies of American Law Enforcement,

There is a growing perception among many Americans that we are headed for one of those periodic moments in our history when our reactions to events will redefine who we are as a people, where we are going as a country and who gets to call the shots when we get there -- what George H.W. Bush called “that vision thing.” This is happening in the middle of unprecedented external and internal stresses on our social order, the results of which you see daily on the streets.

It is going to get worse.

Odds are, it is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better.

IF it gets better any time soon, which I doubt.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of American law enforcement, the prudent among you should be considering this question now, rather than later: “What am I going to do when we get to ‘much worse’?”

Consider first where we are.

The Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center estimated last year that there were over a million hard-core gang members in this country who were responsible for over 80% of the crimes. Other experts have suggested that when you add in the gangs’ “extended families” and wannabes the number is closer to between five and ten million. As unemployment has increased, their numbers have likewise swelled.

But the gangs, as bad as they are and as great a threat as they pose to public order, are nothing compared to the larger problem, and that is this.

Respect for duly constituted authority and social trust are essential ingredients of civilization. These elements represent the basic glue of society.

Respect for duly constituted authority is, as every cop knows, at an all-time low. There are two general reasons for this, one systemic and the other so personal that if you look yourselves honestly in the mirror you can see it.

Systemically, “duly constituted authority” derives its legitimacy from the founding documents of our country, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and from the Founders’ concepts of the rule of law. These have all been under attack for a hundred years or more by both corrupt political parties and their union and business familiars. The Constitution has become for some a joke and for others an inconvenient speed bump on the road to tyranny. As long as this degradation of the legitimacy of our political and legal system was perceived by a narrow portion of the population, it was manageable in a societal sense. This is no longer true. When a president and Congress robs one set of people to enrich their cronies, when they violate the settled rule of law regarding bankruptcy to stiff secured creditors in the case of General Motors while rewarding anointed unsecured creditors -- their political allies, the auto unions -- the rest of the population cannot fail but conclude that we are no longer under the rule of law, but the rule of men, which is to say, the law of the jungle. Or, put another way, they -- the “authorities” -- can do anything that the citizenry can’t or won’t stop them from doing. This is the societal Catch 22 we are now in (and have been for a while) that I call “Waco Rules.”

Other cases such as that of David Olofson, a veteran and marksmanship instructor and family man who was railroaded by the ATF on an automatic weapons charge when his semi-automatic AR-15 malfunctioned -- and he was chosen for prosecution simply because the ATF did not care for his low opinion of them -- have convinced many that a fair trial is no longer possible in federal court if an agency decides to “deal with” them. And if we are no longer guaranteed a fair trial in the federal court system, then if we are innocent and decide that we do not wish to play drop the soap with either the Aryan or Muslim Brotherhoods, our only guarantee is the right of an unfair gunfight when the ATF comes calling.

And remember that Olofson is merely one example of federal misadventure. There are many others, as there are plenty of similar cases in local and state jurisdictions. When the law-abiding rightfully no longer trust the law enforcers and begin to view them as a class of criminals merely acting under color of law, anarchy is not far away.

Yet, you will say, “don’t blame me, I enforce the law, I don’t make it.” True, but insufficient as an excuse, and here we get down to that look in the mirror.

My friend and fellow gun rights blogger David Codrea over at WaronGuns has a description for feral cops. He calls them the “Only Ones.” His daily blog is filled to overflowing with example of rogue cops, their partners who never rein them in and the prosecutors and judges who find reasons to go easy on even the most heinous of criminals with badges. You know who I’m talking about. If you say there are none of these currently operating or in the making within your department then you are either lying or uninterested in seeing the truth, which amounts to the same thing.

Everyone knows what happens to honest cops who “rat out” their uniformed criminal associates. They are hounded, despised, disciplined and shunned -- and that’s on a good day. Can you blame many of us who pay attention to such law enforcement corruption for concluding that you may merely be a member of an “official gang” as opposed to a freelance one? Such dereliction of duty begs the question: If your excuse is that you don’t make the law, you just enforce it, and then you don’t enforce it upon yourselves, why should we be paying tax dollars to support “official” law breaking?

There is another image that many of you can see in the mirror if you choose to take an honest look -- that of tax collector and nanny state bully boy. Yes, we know, you didn’t make the laws, some liberal puke with a control fetish did. But when you write speeding tickets for 3 miles over the limit because you’ve been told to write “x amount” of dollar value or when you pull people over for “seatbelt violations” at random roadblocks and then ransack their cars without probable cause, can you understand how such behavior eats away like acid on your reputation -- individually and collectively -- as servants of the citizenry? What part of “to protect and serve” does that represent?

But worse than all that is the militarization of the police -- in equipment, tactics and, worst of all, attitude -- and the federalization of all law enforcement over the past forty years, but especially in the last ten. There were, last time I checked a few years ago, something like 750,000 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. Add to that another 150,000 or so full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government. With the growth of new agencies like the TSA during the “war on terror” (who, because of political correctness can’t seem to figure out who the real “terrorists” are so they merely oppress the rest of us in order to be “fair”) that number has certainly risen.

In any case, there are hardly enough Feds to work the administration’s will upon a nation so vast and a people so numerous, so much thought and effort has gone into suborning and subverting local and state law enforcement for federal purposes -- “Joint Task Forces” and “fusion centers” being two principal ways. Yet, as the Founders quite clearly understood, it is one of the duties of local law enforcement, especially the county sheriffs, to interpose themselves between the federal government and the people of their jurisdictions when the federal government becomes oppressive.

Now, however, local law enforcement is looked upon by federal agents as force multipliers and willing stooges -- “local yokels” in their parlance. And as a mark of how successful their campaign has been, many local law enforcement officers agree and happily lick the boots that kick them.

A recent case in point. Two county sheriff’s deputies showed up at the doorstep of a man out west who had expressed his contempt for Nancy Pelosi and and other federal politicians in letters and emails. These deputies, saying that the FBI had sent them, interrogated the man, threatened him “with Leavenworth” and engaged in intimidation of political speech. These local cops, having no jurisdiction to do anything of the sort, would have been laughed off of my porch here in Alabama and told to bugger off and return with real federal cops, if that was in fact their intention. Too often these days, when the federal man says “frog” many of you merely ask “how high?”

Of course, if this intimidation had back-fired on the locals in any way, the Fibbies would have been the first to disavow them, leaving them hanging out in the legal laundry to dry. So when y’all are looking in that mirror, ask yourselves how truly stupid you actually are when it comes to enforcing an agenda and not the law just because the Feds ask you to.

Because here’s the essential thing: you, ALL OF YOU, took an oath to, among other things, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You swore that, the overwhelming majority of you, to God. Did you think that oath had a shelf life? Do you think that now that you have by your reckoning faithfully upheld that oath for, say, twenty years now that tomorrow it is okay to forget it? You swore, whether you realized it at the time or not, an OATH, before GOD, and it was a LIFETIME oath.

While you are looking in the mirror, evaluate your career based upon that oath. It was not to a man, or an administration, or a political party but to an idea -- the idea of ordered liberty as codified in the Constitution of the United States of America. So ask yourself, did you or did you not intend to faithfully uphold that oath? Because the answer to that question is going to become very important very quickly as this politically divided and morally fractured society continues to spin out of control.

To quote Joshua, “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

Katrina showed us many things. It showed that in a disaster many cops will look to their families and not the public duty, leaving their fellow law enforcement officers with an even greater burden. It showed us that cops can be opportunistic criminals as well, partaking in looting with as much energy as professional criminals. It also showed us that the police no longer trust the law-abiding citizen with arms, depriving them of their only means of self-defense once the cops have moved on, leaving them to the tender mercies of robbers, rapists and murderers.

It is perhaps dangerous to make too large of a generalization, for there are many rural jurisdictions where this still does apply, but the fact of the matter is that by and large, the police no longer trust the people they are supposed to protect, and they especially do not trust an armed citizen, even if he represents no danger to the cop. This is standing the oath on its head. The people do not exist to serve the servant, but rather the other way around.

When a policeman pulls over a driver whose computer record shows not only the driver’s license of the vehicle’s owner, but the fact that they have a concealed carry permit, it is too often SOP for the cop to approach the vehicle, gun drawn, order the man or woman from the car, put them on their knees and cuff them before anything else transpires. These are not the acts of public servants but rather of an occupying army. And with each breach of trust, the glue holding society together is further weakened. For the more you distrust us, the more we are reminded to distrust you.

It is important to remember, Mr. and Ms. Law Enforcement Officer, that you need us, the law-abiding armed citizenry, one hell of a lot more than we need you. Just ask any criminal. Who is it that they fear most? The encounter with a policeman or a would-be victim who turns out to be armed? I tell you this uncomfortable truth and I hope you have the honesty to admit it -- the criminals of this country are far more scared of the armed citizenry than they are of the police.

It is not the fear of the patrol car that inhibits criminal behavior the most, but rather the prospect of screwing up and getting his brains blown out by a citizen in righteous self defense. And so, when you participate in citizen disarmament efforts, whether gun seizures like Katrina, or merely identifying otherwise friendly peaceable folks as “the enemy” just because they are armed, you are alienating your most valuable friends and empowering your most vicious enemies. Not to mention the fact that you are violating that sacred oath you took.

So ponder that deteriorating social trust that holds civilizations together, and then ponder this: the worst is yet to come.

What will happen when we are faced, God forbid, with some dislocating national disaster -- natural or man-made -- that makes Katrina look like a kindergarten playground? Now, even if you intend to run off like some New Orleans policemen did to see to the safety of their families rather than keep order in the city, you are still going to need the cooperation of the armed citizenry in your home neighborhood to protect your family.

You -- ALL of you -- law enforcement officers, will then need us, the armed citizenry -- ALL of us willing and competent to muster -- to defend public order against the tide of chaos represented by five or ten million gang members and the tens of millions of panicked unprepared refugees or opportunistic criminals left unrestrained by a breakdown.

Do you seriously think that federal police, all 150,000 of them, will actually help you in that event, beyond issuing orders that they will not be personally endangered with carrying out?

You will then be on your own, and you will have us. At least those of you will who have the sense to plan now to make that happen in the event.

You might start by remembering your oaths, by beginning to trust us, by refusing to engage in petty harrassments of CCW permit holders and by strengthening your department’s auxiliary program (or starting one if you do not have one).

But first and foremost you must quit looking at and treating the law-abiding armed citizenry of the United States as the enemy. For if you don’t, we certainly will be.

Convince us by your actions that you are no better than the gangs who commit crimes without uniforms and we will treat you similarly. And there ain’t nearly enough of you to shove us around in a real national emergency.

Remember, Americans are nothing if not a practical people. We're predisposed to help and support you. Please, take our hand when it is offered, BEFORE it is needed.

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

[jrsweb]

He just went to the top of the watch list.... and TSA list too. Law enforcement, especially federal, are very sensitive to being accused publicly. I'm sure the IRS is pulling up his returns and ready to make his life a nightmare.

[Sean K.]

He just went to the top of the watch list.... and TSA list too. Law enforcement, especially federal, are very sensitive to being accused publicly. I'm sure the IRS is pulling up his returns and ready to make his life a nightmare.

He's already under a federal wire tap according to his site (and if you went there as you said in the other thread....you're likely now on a "list" somewhere as well).....and I'd guarantee he's on the no-fly list (among many others).  You see, SOMEONE has to stand up.  At some point, we all have to make our choice.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"

I'm not saying we are at that point yet....probably not even close.  But if it happens, choices will have to be made. 

The sad thing is that we ARE at a point where speaking one's mind and speaking out against the tyranny of our own government lands you on a "list", denies your liberty without due process (no-fly list), and labels you a terrorist for merely stating an opinion.

Sean

[piusmilitis]

I got an open letter to American Law Enforcement . . . actually I've got 2.  Guess which ones?

On a serious note, like this.  If he's on some list you can put my name next to it. 

[Phoenixx6]

So it comes down to freedom of speech vs. Uncle Sam and the greater government of America getting their butt hurt over what someone says.  I see...

One would hope that the government would want to be greater and correct those actions that the vocal minority have pointed out, or at least address those concerns, address that they are true or they are not true.  And then should they be found true by their own conscious or the voting public then be addressed and corrected.

As he said, they've all taken an oath, myself included, but through some self rationalization some have bent, twisted, and shattered the rules and ideals of the nation at large to serve their own purposes. 

Oh if only nations came with a reset button.

[TomAiello]

Oh if only nations came with a reset button.

They do.  It just takes a massive effort to push it.  I wonder if Jefferson would think it was time to water the tree again?

Hmmm.....maybe I'll make up bumper stickers reading "WWTJD?"

[TexasChris]

I'd slap one on the rig.

[tk]

Oh if only nations came with a reset button.

They do.  It just takes a massive effort to push it.  I wonder if Jefferson would think it was time to water the tree again?

Hmmm.....maybe I'll make up bumper stickers reading "WWTJD?"

I LIKE it.

tk

[tk]

So it comes down to freedom of speech vs. Uncle Sam and the greater government of America getting their butt hurt over what someone says.  I see...

One would hope that the government would want to be greater and correct those actions that the vocal minority have pointed out, or at least address those concerns, address that they are true or they are not true.  And then should they be found true by their own conscious or the voting public then be addressed and corrected.

As he said, they've all taken an oath, myself included, but through some self rationalization some have bent, twisted, and shattered the rules and ideals of the nation at large to serve their own purposes. 

Oh if only nations came with a reset button.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment is the "reboot" button for our government. 

The only question is. "are we willing to push it?"

tk

[11b101abn]

This ****** guy lost me at the militarization ********.

Douchebag.

[TexasChris]

This fuckin guy lost me at the militarization bullshit.

Douchebag.

Well definitely don't read anything you don't like.

You wouldn't want to learn anything....that's dangerous.

[Sean K.]

This fuckin guy lost me at the militarization bullshit.

Douchebag.

Ya, b/c you obviously don't see that happening, right? 

[kclark3]

Sounds like this guy needs to crash his plane into something in protest.  Hopefully he'll make a practice run into the side of mountain first.

[Sean K.]

Sounds like this guy needs to crash his plane into something in protest.  Hopefully he'll make a practice run into the side of mountain first.

Obviously a knee jerk reaction on your part is better than educating yourself to what this guy stands for........

[TomAiello]

Apparently, someone has already beat me to the "WWTJD" idea.  A search on zazzle reveals lots of hits.  I even found a WWTJD web site.

[tk]

This fuckin guy lost me at the militarization bullshit.

Douchebag.

You won't find a whole lot of comments like this on this particular website.

We discuss a lot of adult subjects here, and an amazing amount of decorum is maintained, even in the midst of passionate disagreement.


tk

[kclark3]

Sounds like this guy needs to crash his plane into something in protest.  Hopefully he'll make a practice run into the side of mountain first.

Obviously a knee jerk reaction on your part is better than educating yourself to what this guy stands for........

Of course, because I posted a comment in oposition...I have been considered to have failed to educate myself.  Were all entitled to our own opinions.  (I'm starting to feel like a broken record here)  One might go as far as to say you have failed to educate yourself to what I stand for........

[TomAiello]

Of course, because I posted a comment in oposition...I have been considered to have failed to educate myself.

I think it was actually the nature of your comment that led Sean to the conclusion that you weren't educating yourself.  Your first response (that he needed to crash an airplane into a mountain) sounds very reactionary, and doesn't really address any of the points in the underlying debate.  Had you posted something more like a rebuttal to a point (or points) made in the linked letter, that would have been a better demonstration of your self-education, and would likely have yielded a different reaction.

[Sean K.]

Of course, because I posted a comment in oposition...I have been considered to have failed to educate myself.

I think it was actually the nature of your comment that led Sean to the conclusion that you weren't educating yourself.  Your first response (that he needed to crash an airplane into a mountain) sounds very reactionary, and doesn't really address any of the points in the underlying debate.  Had you posted something more like a rebuttal to a point (or points) made in the linked letter, that would have been a better demonstration of your self-education, and would likely have yielded a different reaction.

Exactly.  I remember one of kclark's first comments on this forum was how he "tells it like it is" or some such bravado.  Frankly, I see that as a cop-out to be insulting and stomp on everyone else's opinions.  I'll agree that honesty is a good thing.....but there comes a point where you have to be honest, tactfully.  That doesn't mean you have to sugar coat anything or kiss anyone's ass.  You just should be respectful or expect disrespect when you dish it out. 

In this instance, you make blind assumptions about what Mike Vanderboegh (sp?) stands for without bothering to learn that Mike wrote an entire blog on why Joe Stack was wrong.....which would make your point about "flying a plane into a mountain" kinda moot.  Further, he does NOT advocate taking any action against the government.....unless they initiate the violence.  What kind of human being believes that if he's unlawfully attacked by another person or entity (even if it is our own government) that they shouldn't defend themselves?

If you want to debate what he wrote in this letter......go ahead.  I'll be happy to engage you on the topic.....but at least confine it to what you actually know.

Respectfully,
Sean

[kclark3]

Of course, because I posted a comment in oposition...I have been considered to have failed to educate myself.

I think it was actually the nature of your comment that led Sean to the conclusion that you weren't educating yourself.  Your first response (that he needed to crash an airplane into a mountain) sounds very reactionary, and doesn't really address any of the points in the underlying debate.  Had you posted something more like a rebuttal to a point (or points) made in the linked letter, that would have been a better demonstration of your self-education, and would likely have yielded a different reaction.

There was no debate presented (initially).  Sean did not post how he felt about the letters points, nor did he ask for others opinions to even create a debate.  Instead he acted annoyed by 11b101abn and my comments, and chose to direct an insult at me.

[Sean K.]

Of course, because I posted a comment in oposition...I have been considered to have failed to educate myself.

I think it was actually the nature of your comment that led Sean to the conclusion that you weren't educating yourself.  Your first response (that he needed to crash an airplane into a mountain) sounds very reactionary, and doesn't really address any of the points in the underlying debate.  Had you posted something more like a rebuttal to a point (or points) made in the linked letter, that would have been a better demonstration of your self-education, and would likely have yielded a different reaction.

There was no debate presented (initially).  Sean did not post how he felt about the letters points, nor did he ask for others opinions to even create a debate.  Instead he acted annoyed by 11b101abn and my comments, and chose to direct an insult at me.

For a self proclaimed "tell it like it is" guy....you sure have thin skin if you thought my comment critiquing your "knee jerk" statement amounted to an "insult".

I thought it was pretty obvious from the overall tone of the thread (as well as my initial response) that I agree with the letter.

Frankly, I'm also surprised there's a debate.  What is it exactly you disagree with in the letter?

Sean

[kclark3]

Ok Sean here is where I have problems with this letter.  In another forum you accused me of making overly generalized comments and assumptions.  This letter is full of assumptions, generalizations and vague accounts, which the reader is supposed to accept as truth.  This letter to me reeks propoganda.  

On a side note, for whatever reason when I type the stupid text box keeps jumping back upto the top, so I appologize for all of the errors.

An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement

Article archived from sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com


“Choose this day whom you will serve.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement.

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity. -- William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming.”

smalline

 

Gentlemen and Ladies of American Law Enforcement,

There is a growing perception among many Americans that we are headed for one of those periodic moments in our history when our reactions to events will redefine who we are as a people, where we are going as a country and who gets to call the shots when we get there -- what George H.W. Bush called “that vision thing.” This is happening in the middle of unprecedented external and internal stresses on our social order, the results of which you see daily on the streets.

It is going to get worse. I would agree with this.

Odds are, it is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better.

IF it gets better any time soon, which I doubt.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of American law enforcement, the prudent among you should be considering this question now, rather than later: “What am I going to do when we get to ‘much worse’?”

Consider first where we are.

The Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center estimated last year that there were over a million hard-core gang members in this country who were responsible for over 80% of the crimes. Other experts have suggested that when you add in the gangs’ “extended families” and wannabes the number is closer to between five and ten million. As unemployment has increased, their numbers have likewise swelled.
Being an "extendid family member does not make you a "hard core" gang member, In fact it doesn 't even make you a criminal.  This appears to be nothing more than a stretch to make his numbers appear more impressive.
But the gangs, as bad as they are and as great a threat as they pose to public order, are nothing compared to the larger problem, and that is this.

Respect for duly constituted authority and social trust are essential ingredients of civilization. These elements represent the basic glue of society.

Respect for duly constituted authority is, as every cop knows, at an all-time low. There are two general reasons for this, one systemic and the other so personal that if you look yourselves honestly in the mirror you can see it.

Systemically, “duly constituted authority” derives its legitimacy from the founding documents of our country, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and from the Founders’ concepts of the rule of law. These have all been under attack for a hundred years or more by both corrupt political parties and their union and business familiars. The Constitution has become for some a joke and for others an inconvenient speed bump on the road to tyranny. As long as this degradation of the legitimacy of our political and legal system was perceived by a narrow portion of the population, it was manageable in a societal sense. This is no longer true. When a president and Congress robs one set of people to enrich their cronies, when they violate the settled rule of law regarding bankruptcy to stiff secured creditors in the case of General Motors while rewarding anointed unsecured creditors -- their political allies, the auto unions -- the rest of the population cannot fail but conclude that we are no longer under the rule of law, but the rule of men, which is to say, the law of the jungle. Or, put another way, they -- the “authorities” -- can do anything that the citizenry can’t or won’t stop them from doing. This is the societal Catch 22 we are now in (and have been for a while) that I call “Waco Rules.”This is why we VOTE, so we can actively influence and control the government.  Here he directs the blame at a corrupt government, when it should be directed at the citizens who chose not to make their voices heard as intended during our governments conception.

Other cases such as that of David Olofson, a veteran and marksmanship instructor and family man who was railroaded by the ATF on an automatic weapons charge when his semi-automatic AR-15 malfunctioned -- and he was chosen for prosecution simply because the ATF did not care for his low opinion of them -- have convinced many that a fair trial is no longer possible in federal court if an agency decides to “deal with” them. And if we are no longer guaranteed a fair trial in the federal court system, then if we are innocent and decide that we do not wish to play drop the soap with either the Aryan or Muslim Brotherhoods, our only guarantee is the right of an unfair gunfight when the ATF comes calling.On this you just have to decide if you believe the defense or the prosecution.  However I found on wikipedia Kierniki testified Olofson told him the weapon was full auto capable.  Also he went as far as to testify Olofson fired the weapon on full auto on a previous range outing.  Like I said though you have to decidee who you want to believe.

And remember that Olofson is merely one example of federal misadventure. There are many others, as there are plenty of similar cases in local and state jurisdictions. When the law-abiding rightfully no longer trust the law enforcers and begin to view them as a class of criminals merely acting under color of law, anarchy is not far away.

Yet, you will say, “don’t blame me, I enforce the law, I don’t make it.” True, but insufficient as an excuse, and here we get down to that look in the mirror.This is a perfectly sufficient argument.  They are merely enforceing the laws created by the society you live in.

My friend and fellow gun rights blogger David Codrea over at WaronGuns has a description for feral cops. He calls them the “Only Ones.” His daily blog is filled to overflowing with example of rogue cops, their partners who never rein them in and the prosecutors and judges who find reasons to go easy on even the most heinous of criminals with badges. You know who I’m talking about. If you say there are none of these currently operating or in the making within your department then you are either lying or uninterested in seeing the truth, which amounts to the same thing.There will always be a few bad apples.  This is not in dispute, but there is no where near what propagandists would leave you to believe.  In the end they get weeded out.  You can look endless accounts of LEO and agencies being criminally charged for their actions.

Everyone knows what happens to honest cops who “rat out” their uniformed criminal associates. They are hounded, despised, disciplined and shunned -- and that’s on a good day. Can you blame many of us who pay attention to such law enforcement corruption for concluding that you may merely be a member of an “official gang” as opposed to a freelance one? Such dereliction of duty begs the question: If your excuse is that you don’t make the law, you just enforce it, and then you don’t enforce it upon yourselves, why should we be paying tax dollars to support “official” law breaking?See my above comment.  Additionally agencys have "mandatory reporting" clauses in their SOPs regarding criminal actions by LEO.

There is another image that many of you can see in the mirror if you choose to take an honest look -- that of tax collector and nanny state bully boy. Yes, we know, you didn’t make the laws, some liberal puke with a control fetish did. But when you write speeding tickets for 3 miles over the limit because you’ve been told to write “x amount” of dollar value or when you pull people over for “seatbelt violations” at random roadblocks and then ransack their cars without probable cause, can you understand how such behavior eats away like acid on your reputation -- individually and collectively -- as servants of the citizenry? What part of “to protect and serve” does that represent?I don't agree with random checkpoints.  I feel they are a violation of our Fourth Amendment.

But worse than all that is the militarization of the police -- in equipment, tactics and, worst of all, attitude -- and the federalization of all law enforcement over the past forty years, but especially in the last ten. There were, last time I checked a few years ago, something like 750,000 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. Add to that another 150,000 or so full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government. With the growth of new agencies like the TSA during the “war on terror” (who, because of political correctness can’t seem to figure out who the real “terrorists” are so they merely oppress the rest of us in order to be “fair”) that number has certainly risen.You will never be able to prevent military influence on the police.  Soldiers get out and many go into law enforcement.  I would never fault a LEO for using techniques proven effective in combat provided they are used in a reasonable and necessary manner.  Additionallyit makes no sense to ill equip law enfocement for the task we expect them to undertake.

In any case, there are hardly enough Feds to work the administration’s will upon a nation so vast and a people so numerous, so much thought and effort has gone into suborning and subverting local and state law enforcement for federal purposes -- “Joint Task Forces” and “fusion centers” being two principal ways. Yet, as the Founders quite clearly understood, it is one of the duties of local law enforcement, especially the county sheriffs, to interpose themselves between the federal government and the people of their jurisdictions when the federal government becomes oppressive.

Now, however, local law enforcement is looked upon by federal agents as force multipliers and willing stooges -- “local yokels” in their parlance. And as a mark of how successful their campaign has been, many local law enforcement officers agree and happily lick the boots that kick them.This is a broad assumption.

A recent case in point. Two county sheriff’s deputies showed up at the doorstep of a man out west who had expressed his contempt for Nancy Pelosi and and other federal politicians in letters and emails. These deputies, saying that the FBI had sent them, interrogated the man, threatened him “with Leavenworth” and engaged in intimidation of political speech. These local cops, having no jurisdiction to do anything of the sort, would have been laughed off of my porch here in Alabama and told to bugger off and return with real federal cops, if that was in fact their intention. Too often these days, when the federal man says “frog” many of you merely ask “how high?”What does he mean by contempt?  Were there threats in the letters?  Why wasn't he more specific with the case, providing the county?  My guess is becasue it benefits the proganda to be vague.

Of course, if this intimidation had back-fired on the locals in any way, the Fibbies would have been the first to disavow them, leaving them hanging out in the legal laundry to dry. So when y’all are looking in that mirror, ask yourselves how truly stupid you actually are when it comes to enforcing an agenda and not the law just because the Feds ask you to.Broad Assumption.

Because here’s the essential thing: you, ALL OF YOU, took an oath to, among other things, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You swore that, the overwhelming majority of you, to God. Did you think that oath had a shelf life? Do you think that now that you have by your reckoning faithfully upheld that oath for, say, twenty years now that tomorrow it is okay to forget it? You swore, whether you realized it at the time or not, an OATH, before GOD, and it was a LIFETIME oath.

While you are looking in the mirror, evaluate your career based upon that oath. It was not to a man, or an administration, or a political party but to an idea -- the idea of ordered liberty as codified in the Constitution of the United States of America. So ask yourself, did you or did you not intend to faithfully uphold that oath? Because the answer to that question is going to become very important very quickly as this politically divided and morally fractured society continues to spin out of control.

To quote Joshua, “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

Katrina showed us many things. It showed that in a disaster many cops will look to their families and not the public duty, leaving their fellow law enforcement officers with an even greater burden. It showed us that cops can be opportunistic criminals as well, partaking in looting with as much energy as professional criminals. It also showed us that the police no longer trust the law-abiding citizen with arms, depriving them of their only means of self-defense once the cops have moved on, leaving them to the tender mercies of robbers, rapists and murderers.http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202  The mistake was realized and corrected.  Not through the actions of political militants, but politicle activism.

It is perhaps dangerous to make too large of a generalization, for there are many rural jurisdictions where this still does apply, but the fact of the matter is that by and large, the police no longer trust the people they are supposed to protect, and they especially do not trust an armed citizen, even if he represents no danger to the cop. This is standing the oath on its head. The people do not exist to serve the servant, but rather the other way around.

When a policeman pulls over a driver whose computer record shows not only the driver’s license of the vehicle’s owner, but the fact that they have a concealed carry permit, it is too often SOP for the cop to approach the vehicle, gun drawn, order the man or woman from the car, put them on their knees and cuff them before anything else transpires. These are not the acts of public servants but rather of an occupying army. And with each breach of trust, the glue holding society together is further weakened. For the more you distrust us, the more we are reminded to distrust you.So a question for our LEOs.  Is this your SOP?  My guess is no, and in the cases where this might have occured there were some additional observations made by the police.

It is important to remember, Mr. and Ms. Law Enforcement Officer, that you need us, the law-abiding armed citizenry, one hell of a lot more than we need you. Just ask any criminal. Who is it that they fear most? The encounter with a policeman or a would-be victim who turns out to be armed? I tell you this uncomfortable truth and I hope you have the honesty to admit it -- the criminals of this country are far more scared of the armed citizenry than they are of the police.I would say they are equally feared.  a person with  gun and the will to use it is scary regardless of his/her clothing.

It is not the fear of the patrol car that inhibits criminal behavior the most, but rather the prospect of screwing up and getting his brains blown out by a citizen in righteous self defense. And so, when you participate in citizen disarmament efforts, whether gun seizures like Katrina, or merely identifying otherwise friendly peaceable folks as “the enemy” just because they are armed, you are alienating your most valuable friends and empowering your most vicious enemies. Not to mention the fact that you are violating that sacred oath you took.Refernce the earlier hyper link

So ponder that deteriorating social trust that holds civilizations together, and then ponder this: the worst is yet to come.

What will happen when we are faced, God forbid, with some dislocating national disaster -- natural or man-made -- that makes Katrina look like a kindergarten playground? Now, even if you intend to run off like some New Orleans policemen did to see to the safety of their families rather than keep order in the city, you are still going to need the cooperation of the armed citizenry in your home neighborhood to protect your family.

You -- ALL of you -- law enforcement officers, will then need us, the armed citizenry -- ALL of us willing and competent to muster -- to defend public order against the tide of chaos represented by five or ten million gang members and the tens of millions of panicked unprepared refugees or opportunistic criminals left unrestrained by a breakdown.

Do you seriously think that federal police, all 150,000 of them, will actually help you in that event, beyond issuing orders that they will not be personally endangered with carrying out?

You will then be on your own, and you will have us. At least those of you will who have the sense to plan now to make that happen in the event.

You might start by remembering your oaths, by beginning to trust us, by refusing to engage in petty harrassments of CCW permit holders and by strengthening your department’s auxiliary program (or starting one if you do not have one).

But first and foremost you must quit looking at and treating the law-abiding armed citizenry of the United States as the enemy. For if you don’t, we certainly will be.

Convince us by your actions that you are no better than the gangs who commit crimes without uniforms and we will treat you similarly. And there ain’t nearly enough of you to shove us around in a real national emergency.Officers on a daily basis stand in harms way to protect society.  I would say that's a pretty good indicator they are more than your common street thugs.

Remember, Americans are nothing if not a practical people. We're predisposed to help and support you. Please, take our hand when it is offered, BEFORE it is needed.

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

[Sean K.]

I'm not sure either of us are qualified to interpret Mike's use of the term "extended families" or "wannabe's" in the context in which this is written.  You do realize that 'wannabe's' aren't actually blood related, right?  They are non-proven gang prospects.  Extended families very well could refer to blood family members (but what kind of person wouldn't also protect their family members, in spite of their gang affiliation, in the event of societal unrest on a very large scale)....but, much like the terminology of wannabe....it could very well refer to many things such as the fact that gang members refer to one another as cousins and brothers when they are not actually related.  It *could* conceivably mean actual family members either by blood or by marriage or even people they are more informally affiliated with...people (or other gangs) with which they might ally in a time of desperation seeking "strength in numbers".  However, I won't speculate as to what Mike meant....you're free to write him yourself.  His website is www.sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com.  He freely posts his email in the right hand column (and it's also at the bottom of the article).  If you contact him, please post his response.

I haven't read the rest of your bold comments yet, but so far....this sounds an awful lot like picking nits.

I gather you don't think that 1 million is impressive enough?  Or are you saying Mike doesn't think 1 million active gang members isn't enough so he's padding his numbers? 

I think you mean the latter.....but I guess I fail to see your point.  This really is the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees.  If a million man army was marching across the country or a million man terrorist team was creating havoc in every major city, do you not think that's a significant enough number?  1 million would be bad enough....5-10M could prove to be unstoppable.  Regardless of your opinion of his projections....the million man number is legit.

Moving on to your next point. 

Voting is a beautiful thing.  You are correct.  However, I would argue that we (certainly as individuals) have very little say in how our government is run.  Certainly you've heard people say they've voted for the "lesser of two evils" or that they "held their nose" and voted for someone they didn't agree with b/c the other choice was even more repugnant.  This is the real problem of the two party system and the illusion of choice the sheeple get from such a facade. Your choices are A: Democrats (which believe in bigger government for increased social programs) or B: Republicans (which believe in bigger government for the military/industrial complex).   Neither is really a party that believes in less intrusive government.  Many will argue the Republicans have tried in the past to limit the size of government....but as the 1994 Contract with America vividly illustrated, the Republicrats ran on the platform of reducing government but never followed through on the campaign promises of cutting waste and shrinking the several targeted government agencies and budgets. 


The issue is further complicated where we have a system in which only half of us are paying into that system, yet all of us get to vote as to the division of the income.  Additionally, we spend a LOT of money on public education in this country....and our government is getting exactly what it's paying for....a largely apathetic, woefully ignorant, historically blind, easily controlled populace.  Just b/c they don't know or understand their natural rights, natural law, or the Constitution and are willing to give up their freedom for security, doesn't make it right.  Let me remind you: we are NOT a Democracy.  We are a Constitutional Republic.  There is a HUGE difference.  Voting is a large part of it....but pure democracy, majority rules is not what the founders envisioned. "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."-John Adams. In fact, they said the purpose of government was to protect the minority from the majority.

Your comment that voting can solve the issue and that the people are to blame ignores the fact that the paragraph immediately preceding your comments is ripe with instances where the people
sent un-told millions of emails, letters and calls to their "non-representing" representatives in Washington DC and were IGNORED....just as you ignore the context and sentiment of that preceding paragraph.  Voting will happen....this year.  But, since we are essentially left with only 2 choices for the offices (b/c independents and non-politicians don't have the funds to compete with professional politicians, their political machines or the lobbyists that donate heavily to their campaigns) it is highly unlikely that many true patriots (in the sense that they go to Washington to do what is best for the country rather than themselves) will even have a chance at election in the first place.

Specifically, do you disagree that the DoI, Constitution and BoR should be the legitimate basis for our government?

Do you disagree that our "rules of law" are now more like "rules of men"?  For example (just as one example), Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner (and at least two other prominent politicians) were behind on their taxes....in Geitner's case to the tune of $2M.   Do you honestly believe you or I could be that far in debt to the IRS and NOT be prosecuted and/or have judgments levied against us?

Do you not believe our supreme documents have been under attack for the last 100 years?  If not, what is your answer to the fact that Article 1 section 2 clearly states "No un-apportioned taxes" and yet the Federal Income Tax was passed as an un-apportioned tax in 1913 under the Federal Reserve Act....which also set up a central bank which the founders were vehemently opposed to and was one of the major reasons for separation with Great Britain and the Revolutionary War?

What about the NFA of 1934?  Clearly unconstitutional and in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.  Had Arkansas bothered to even send a public defender to the Miller v. US trial, the outcome would have likely been that the NFA was unconstitutional (considering the high court wrote in the majority opinion that a sawed off shotgun had no military purpose and therefore was not covered under the 2nd A).  Had an attorney for the defendant (who had subsequently died after his arrest but before trial) actually shown up for the hearing....he'd likely have presented evidence that a short 'sawed-off' shotgun was an essential tool of war in WWI trench warfare and was therefore protected.  Do you see the fundamental paradigm shift that has occurred with regards to the 2A since that time (1939)?  We now have politicians, a media and an ignorant populace that truly believes a firearm must have a "sporting" use in order to be legal to own.   Obviously, at the time of Miller,  the justices understood the true purpose of the 2A....to overthrow tyrannical government or repel foreign invaders as well as personal protection.

These are just two examples....there a plenty more.  Google top 10 worst supreme court decisions for more info on a whole host of issues.  Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=530

To continue with that paragraph:

Do you believe the bank/car industry bailouts were a legitimate use of taxpayer money?  If yes, why?  If no, why not?  If you agree with what Mike is saying in that paragraph....again, why pick nits and blame the people of the US for things largely out of their control (specifically in the instance of the TARP and bailouts....which, incidentally, is primarily what that whole paragraph was about)?



Olofsen's case:  First off, I thought you mentioned you work in law enforcement....maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but even if you don't.....I'd assume you've heard of perps being offered "deals".

Here are the facts:  Olofsen spoke out loud and often about ATF abuses.  Many people do.....which would explain why there are websites like atfabuse.com and cleanupatf.org (which is incidentally run BY ATF field agents).  Poke around on those sites and tell me how ethical ATF is.  He's not the first guy to be railroaded by ATF....and he certainly won't be the last (<-this part isn't fact, just my opinion based on what I've read of the case and what I've seen on the above mentioned sites). 

Did your wiki article also reference the facts about how Olofsen was "caught"?  Kierniki was at the range, had a couple of 'full auto bursts' and continued to use the rifle. The police were called.  Kierniki was found, in illegal possession of a machine gun as IIRC, the officers witnessed him firing it full auto. Now, the fine/jail sentence for this is something like 10 years in prison, $250K fine.

He said he was looking to buy the gun from Olofsen and was 'test driving' it as he'd done a few times before.  Kierniki wasn't charged with anything.   If Olofsen did, in fact, know the gun would go full auto and told Kierniki....then Kierniki is 100% unequivocally guilty of the possession charge.   He knowingly used the rifle anyway. But he was never charged.  My guess as to why?  B/c he agreed to testify that Olofsen had told him about the rifle malfunctioning. Know what Olofsen was charged with?  Nope....not illegal possession of a machine gun.  He was charged with illegally transferring a machine gun.  If this was all the truth, why didn't they prosecute BOTH of them?  B/c they offered him a deal.  The real question is: did Kierniki actually tell the truth about Olofsen telling him about the malfing rifle or did he say whatever it took to avoid jail time?


Further, do you know that the first test by BATFE ballistics said the gun was nothing but a normal, semi-auto AR?  Do you know that the Special Agent in charge (Keeku IIRC was her name) DEMANDED that the test be repeated several more times (over several more weeks without any subjective analysis by the defense's experts) until they finally found a soft primer/ammo combination that would make the rifle go full auto?  Do you know that the maker of the AR in question, Olympic Arms had a recall on that particular rifle for a problem with the safety selector that could cause it to go full auto?  Did you know the judge suppressed that information and wouldn't allow Olympic Arms to testify in Olofsen's defense?

Do you realize that this isn't the first time the ATF has been caught lying and/or suppressing information in court?  Do you care?  Might want to investigate ATF Director Jim Cavanaugh's sworn testimony before Congress about Waco and how agents did not fire on the Branch Davidians from their helicopter.  Then contrast that testimony with the actual transcript of the phone call between Waco Jim and David Koresh (sp?).  The guy blatantly lied under oath and was promoted for it.....even after the incident cost something like 79 people their lives.

Might want to investigate the ATF's policies on forcing people to be informants.  Look up the Randy Weaver case in Ruby Ridge, Idaho.  Might explain why Kierniki agreed to play ball.

You can believe whatever you want....I'll do the same, but I'll say this: if you think that truth and justice prevail in our legal system today....I just simply cannot agree in many, many instances.  Is it the best one around?  Yes.  Is there another I'd prefer to be accused in?  No. But that doesn't mean there aren't MAJOR problems.

As for "I don't make the rules....I just enforce the laws", how'd that excuse work out for Nazi SS when they rounded up Jews, Catholics, the mentally retarded, the physically handicapped, communists, etc. for extermination?   Too harsh?  Tell that to Vicki Weaver or the 79 or so Branch Davidians that were killed by this agency.  Tell that to the two dead Katrina victims shot on a bridge by NOLA police (and the countless other murders during/after Katrina) that are about to be tried for shooting 6 people in that one instance, falsifying reports about the incident and even planting a gun to make it all seem legit.  http://xcrforum.com/index.php/topic,6573.0.html

If the society agrees to exterminate a race of people, LEO gets a pass for carrying it out?  I think not.  LEO swear an oath to the Constitution.  If they fail to uphold that oath, they should be held accountable (just as the society that would agree to such an atrocity).   That is what Mike's saying.

As for bad apples being "weeded out"......how well do you think that's going to work in the event of a societal collapse that you said in bold, "I would agree with this"?   On a very small scale we saw what happened with Katrina.  What do you think will happen in a large scale, nationwide emergency?  Be honest with yourself here.  It would seem that you are caught up in proving your point about Mike's letter rather than taking it in the manner in which it was written....to remind LEO that we (the law-biding citizenry) will help and support them in their time of need if they reciprocate and mind their sworn oaths.

We agree on random check points....

Militarization of police isn't what you seem to think it's about.  It's not about hiring ex-military personnel for police jobs.  It's about a military mindset and training that our "peace officers" are getting that is changing them from peace officers into law enforcement.  It's an adversarial mindset.  It's the repeal of Posse Comitatus in recent years authorizing military hardware and personnel for use against US civilian populations.  It's a mindset of "my most important mission is to go home at the end of my shift" rather than "to protect and serve".....a sentiment that the SCOTUS has said is not a requirement of officers....they have "no duty" to protect anyone.  It's about using military grade hardware to spy on US citizens or to breach their homes or to assault non-violent "targets" merely on suspicion or on the word of an informant that is anything but an upstanding citizen (see Drone use in Houston http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4WKYx3UOow&feature=player_embedded or the case of Cory Maye http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/09/will-regime-murder-cory-ma_115886743630636750.html for examples).

I will agree that the "local yocal" comment was a broad assumption....but I also believe that it's true in as many cases as it's untrue.  There are folks in local LE that worship the fed branch....and those that feel the feds encroach on what should be their investigations.

I inadvertently didn't address the comment about Mike's vague comments about the threats against Pelosi.  I'm 100% positive that if you'd like to contact Mike, he'll give you specifics.  That's the kind of guy he is.  Much like you, he says he's a "straight shooter".  I have no reason to doubt his word, or yours.

As for the next "broad assumption"....I just simply don't agree.  Again, look at multiple cases with ATF (search the sites I mentioned and find other independent sources to corroborate their commentary)....they have left local/state authorities hanging out to dry on multiple occasions.  The site "clean up ATF" often talks about how the administration/prosecution side of the house regularly leaves local/state prosecutors with weak cases that shouldn't be brought to trial, but are done so for political reasons, hurting the field agents and the ATF's reputation.   It happens.  Just b/c you choose not to believe it, doesn't make it so.

The thing you need to realize is that while this letter is directed to ALL LEO in America, Mike's vast experience is in dealing with ATF. When he cites an example....he's spent a lot more time investigating ATF abuses than either of us have (unless you'd like to inform us of your credentials now....I have very little).  If there ever was widespread civil unrest....do you honestly think that ATF has enough man power to confiscate all the weapons (at least 1 for every man, woman and child in the US)?  They are going to HAVE TO enlist the help of local/state police if not the military for such a scheme. This letter IS directed to all LEO for that reason. If it were something less intensive, like say a confiscation of all NFA items, do you think they have enough man power to even do that in any kind of timely manner?  No. They will need local support.  What if it was only 'EBRs'?  Again, they'll need lots of help.  That is what this letter is about. Do you not see the slant towards firearms freedoms prevalent in this letter?


The mistakes of Katrina were "realized and corrected"?  Seriously?  People who had guns confiscated/destroyed STILL haven't gotten them back or gotten recompense. The shooting on the bridge I referenced earlier is the first case that hasn't even gone to trial yet for the numerous NOLA PD shootings that took place during/after Katrina.  Most were swept under the rug and weren't given the proper amount of investigation to even begin to get justice for the families of the slain.  If you were the father of one of the victims (perhaps the mentally challenged boy shot in the back on the bridge)...would you feel like things are "realized and corrected"?

If things might get as bad as you and Mike seem to agree.....do you think in those times of upheaval, that the corrected mistakes will not arise again....and at a much larger magnitude?

"Realized and corrected" to you seems to mean that some legislature somewhere said, "No confiscation of firearms will take place in the event of an emergency".  However, the 2nd Amendment of the BoR of the US Constitution (the supreme law of the land) says "shall not be infringed".....it says the same thing as this new "law" and it was violated during Katrina.  What makes you think that another piece of paper (of much lower magnitude and reverence) will stop another confiscation?  This line of thought is akin to thinking that additional gun control laws will work b/c they've been codified into law.   Guess what? People with felonies aren't allowed to have guns now....yet they continue to possess and use them in crime b/c a piece of paper doesn't stop anyone (as anyone who's seen an angry lover walk right through a restraining order to assault or murder the holder of the order will attest).


So, judging by your request for the SOP of LEOs for a traffic stop involving a CCW holder, I'd guess you aren't LE?   Sorry for the earlier assumption.  I can only tell you what we were told in our class.....it's up to the officer's discretion.  IMO, as it should be.  I don't particularly agree with Mike on this one....but I will say this: if it happened to me (pulled out of the car at gunpoint and cuffed for no other reason than the LEO being overly suspicious of me), yes, I'd be less trusting of LE in general.  How could you not be? This does happen occasionally and there are many officers that believe that NO ONE  but LE should be allowed to carry. I saw this mindset at last year's Tea Party in Phoenix.... I witnessed officers draw down on a gentleman who was open carrying on non-federal public property.  They rebuked him for carrying and confiscated his firearm and he got it back the next day after having to go down to the PD to get it....he wasn't charged with anything either.  My point was....I've seen this mindset....and these officers try to make it as uncomfortable and bothersome to exercise your 2nd A rights in hopes that it will deter you in the future (IMO).  It's sorta like the hoops you have to jump through to get an NFA tax stamp.  It's to deter people from getting an NFA weapon (and that's on the ATF website: "While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms....The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms." SOURCE: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/).

Police are not "equally" feared compared to a home owner with a gun.  You can reference a couple of interviews and studies with convicts about what they fear most in their chosen profession....it's always an armed "victim".   The police are restrained in large part by the 'rules'.  You can't shoot a fleeing felon in most cases....criminals are worried that a victim either doesn't know this, or simply doesn't care.  I'll leave you to your research since this response is far too long anyway.  Again, this seems like picking nits with regards to your 'grievance' with Mike's letter.

I'd agree with your last sentence and I'd say that's where a large part of our misunderstanding with one another lies.  I can't speak for Mike here, only for myself.  I'm not remotely saying that even a large percentage of LE engage in any unethical behavior.  But it does occur occasionally. And it occurs more frequently under stressful situations like we may all witness in the very near future.  The best recipe to avoid the problem is to address it before there's an event, wouldn't you agree?  That's essentially what this letter is trying to accomplish.

Take care,
Sean








***EDITED numerous times to add links, thoughts and to correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. ****

[kclark3]

Sean,

Just to give you a heads up I'm not avoiding your post.  I'm in the middle of my work week and have very limited time to access the computer.  As that's the case I will unfortunately have to respond to your post over the next couple of days.

To address the first paragraph about us not being qualified to interpret Mike’s definition of “extended family” and “wannabe’s”.  This letter was meant for the masses to read, so I would say we’re all qualified as he did not further explain himself and left it up for interpretation, but realistically we all know what he means when he uses those terms.

To answer your question I think he is absolutely padding the number to further impress his intended audience.

Lets talk briefly about gangs.  A lot of Doom and Gloom folks, and even your self  (“If a million man army was marching across the country……”) like to talk about this huge unstoppable army roaming freely and reeking havoc.  I believe the best way to guess the future is to look at the present.  One thing that people need to realize is most gang violence is gang on gang.  Gangs constantly war based on territory, business (prostitutes, drugs, etc..), ethnicity and the list goes on.   Based on present trends one could only guess that gangs will not get along in the future.  This 1 to 10 million man army is not going to exist.  I didn’t even begin to get into the amount of provisions necessary to support that size force, what it would take to mobilize such a force, or include the toll diseases would take.

Now talking about the 2 party system.  This is a fairly new development as history has shown political parties have come and gone.   Here is a list that is easy to look at and get an idea of how many there have been.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States)

As for voting for the lesser of two evils.  This is how it has always been and will always be.  Theoretically the only way you would not have to elect the lesser of two is if you yourself were elected.  And odds are even you were elected you would find considerable restrictions on the changes you could make.  Thus the reason we often are immediately angered with the Presidents we elect, because it results in them not carrying out their promises.

I agree we are a Constitutional Republic and just because the majority thinks one way does not make it right.  Additionally I agree the DoI, Constitution and BoR should and currently are the basis for our government.

As for your comments about the “non representing” representatives.  As you know, if you are not happy with them vote for new ones.  This is the beauty of a representative government.

To be continued……

Before I go for the evening I would like to address everyones talk about the “Reset Button”.  If you believe the current system has failed and needs to be reset and should also be based on the DoI, Constitution, and BoR then haven’t you just doomed us to repeat what you consider a corrupt government? 

[Sean K.]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.  You and I don't even remotely see things in the same light and any further discussion will be a waste of both our time.


Sean