bryanleu2002
11-17-2007, 01:26 AM
Read Carefully
Why is this concept so flawed, or not?
Why is it that it is common day practice in Law Enforcement? (buy a Scanner and listen)
Why do most (tax paying individuals) in the US believe that the end justifies the means is this the correct course of action?
Consider Before Election Day I may not agree with some of Bush's
policies and I think we should have some exit strategy for Iraq , but
the following makes me think;
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
AthenianRepublic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which
is always followed by chaos."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those
200 years, those nations always progressed through the following
sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
A Lawman Speaks for Liberty
This letter is the first ever written by Police Officer Jack McLamb, of the Phoenix Police Department (1979), to his fellow police officers nationwide. It would later lead to the founding of his international police publication - Aid & Abet Police Newsletter: Constitutional Issues for Lawmen. The publication has since been expanded to include the U.S. National Guard, Coast Guard, and military personnel.
After spending a number of years in law enforcement and at the same time working closely with citizen groups in the city, state and country on various programs, I have fortunately gained a fair understanding as to what citizens think and feel about police officers in their communities.
Of all the different citizens' attitudes and beliefs that I have encountered (including some misconceptions) there is one in particular which seriously affects my own and other officers' attempts to establish a trusting and close relationship with fellow citizens, both in our business and private lives. Let me explain.
There are literally millions of citizens today who have awakened to understand the causes of many of our national problems; thousands upon thousands more join their ranks each month. These citizens are actively attacking the source of these problems, and specifically, they mean to hold government responsible for the part it has played.
People are discovering that government is purposely involved in various actions that are injurious to our society, not to mention illegal in certain cases. They, the citizens, don't understand why we, as law enforcement officers, don't join them in the attack against such wrongful activities. Many have long since decided that it is because police officers have sworn allegiance to "the system", to the government, and that it is the government that is most sacred in our eyes. This group of involved citizens believes that, even though we may be very much aware of the wrongs committed by government officers, we, like many other government officials, believe that "the end somehow justifies the means".
As an example, one large city police department, along with its state criminal justice system, tried to push an unconstitutional bill through the legislature. This bill, if passed, would have allowed law officers to gain evidence illegally, as long as they did so "in good faith". They would then be able to use that evidence in the course of prosecuting the accused.
Well, this sounds like the answer to every officer's dreams, doesn't it? After all, we officers would use these tactics only against criminals now, wouldn't we? What do you think the good citizens felt about this "wonderful" new method of fighting crime? The first thing to cross the mind of the intelligent citizen is that his very privacy, security and freedom would now depend upon who might be doing the labeling of who is and who is not a criminal!
Would the Jews become criminals just because they are Jewish? How about the Irish? Officers, take heed of such new "laws". Who knows, one day all people in "low riders" may be labeled as criminals, or perhaps all blonde-haired, blue-eyed people, or people with "afros". "OH, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!" It already is happening here, in America. You may not be aware of it, but thousands of good citizens are labeled as "criminals" each year by the IRS, for example, in the course of their many "investigations". Suppose this agency (or any other) selects YOU next year, after being allowed to gain "evidence" against you UNLAWFULLY, and then use it in court. A plan very similar to this has just been recommended by the President's Task Force on Crime, and may pass into law this year.
The point is this: The citizen sees his God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights increasingly crushed beneath the feet of those who have sworn an oath to uphold and protect those very rights. And he is absolutely right! And why do we lawmen do such things? Because we do not understand that there are those in power in American government who want to destroy this nation. How do they covertly accomplish this goal? They do it under many names. For example, it is done, many times, in the name of "expediency", or behind the cry, "for the good of the people" or "for the good of the majority". And we officers become the evil-doers' ENFORCERS. Is it any wonder that many private citizens see us as part of the big plan, and who, as INSIDERS, will do what we are told to do, regardless?
I have had occasion to expound over and over again to angry groups of good citizens, that the law officer allows these things to continue for the very same reason that most private citizens allow them to continue: They just don't know what is going on. Officers, like private citizens, are not aware of their rights, so how can they know when they are violating or losing them? They are not aware of the laws protecting those rights, so how can they know when there is a violation? l explain that the American Officer is not knowingly taking part in the perpetuation of these violations and crimes against his fellow citizens; for if he were aware, he would know that he is then destroying his own rights as a citizen. Some people now know and understand this truth, namely, that police officers are as misinformed and naive as other good citizens; and just as badly they need to become informed, IF we are to save this nation.
Probably the most serious problem, and the one that I find hardest to excuse to any satisfaction is this: Why are government officials, lawmen included, allowed to raise their right hands and swear to uphold and protect laws that they don't know exist at the moment they take oath, and still today don't know exist. Sound ridiculous? Do you doubt what I just said? Then answer this question: What is the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights? What'?! You don't remember? How about the Eighth Amendment? Forgot that, too, eh? Now get out your oath of once and read: "I _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the State of ______…" You and I, officer, are like protectors and defenders of that vital document, the Constitution. Should we not know what is in it?
I have a confession. Until a knowledgeable citizen showed me my own ignorance concerning these founding documents, I, too, was guilty of this very serious shortcoming. I remember only too well. It was an old gentleman who, after I spoke in front of a large group of citizens one night, asked me these two questions:
1) How could I, an officer of the law, protect citizens' rights if I did not know what they are?
2) How would I know when, in the performance of my duty, I might be infringing on the rights of the citizen, if I were not knowledgeable of those rights?
What could l say? I was terribly embarrassed, and although I could not admit it that night, I knew he was right. This was the real turning point in my life as an American citizen, and as a protector of the People. I began to feel guilty. I started to read and study. There were two books I read right away: The Constitution Explained by Harry Atwood, and The Biggest Con by Irwin Schiff I was never more shocked in my entire life. I was stunned! I couldn't speak for hours after finishing these books. I have since read them several more times, as well as many others similar in theme.
My life has changed from that time till this. I spent the next two years studying and checking facts. I became "mad" at myself and "mad'' at my fellow citizens, both public and private, for allowing this to happen over the years. I was furious with the government for the atrocities it had been committing, and above all for hooking me into their perpetration!
From that time until now, my goal has been to share what I have learned with my fellow lawmen, hoping that they in turn will share these things with other officers and with their own families. In this way we may join the millions of other good Americans across the country who have decided to stand up and fight for this God-given Land called America. We must secure it once and for all from those traitors within our own system who wish to continue having their way with our liberties and freedoms.
And so I ask: Are you an informed officer? If you are, you will be able to answer the next four questions with ease.
Name one well known, national organization that has been in business for many years, whose goals include that of systematically opposing and deterring any laws designed to curb crime or protect the public. (If you guessed the ACLU, you were correct.)
Is it possible at this time for the President of the U.S. to take complete dictatorial control over this country within 24 hours?
As of November 1980 is it now possible to "arrest" the leaders in the criminal justice system for criminal injustices against the victims of crime?
Is a national police force now being formed? I believe the answers to these questions will shock most officers. The correct answers to questions like these can be vital to the law officer. So why don't more officers have the answers, when so many citizens do? I know why, and you should too. If you're curious about the answers to any of these questions, I'd be very pleased to share them with you. Send a self-addressed, stamped envelope (and perhaps a little to cover copying costs) to my home at (address obsolete)
I wish to share one last thought with you, brothers and sisters: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE. Sound familiar? I recall some years back when thousands of dedicated officers were, put to death, each one stating: "I WAS ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS.'' (Remember Nuremberg?)
The writing is once again on the wall, my fellow officers. You and I, and all government officials, have a heavy responsibility to our countrymen. The SOUNDS OF LIBERTY DYING are all about us. We can ignore those sounds further, but we will hear them again and again, and one day so loudly that we will no longer be able to ignore them ever again. May it not be too late!
Yours in Freedom,
Officer Gerald "Jack" McLamb
Courtesy
Bryan
http://www.jackmclamb.com/Articles/LawmanSpeaksLiberty.htm
Why is this concept so flawed, or not?
Why is it that it is common day practice in Law Enforcement? (buy a Scanner and listen)
Why do most (tax paying individuals) in the US believe that the end justifies the means is this the correct course of action?
Consider Before Election Day I may not agree with some of Bush's
policies and I think we should have some exit strategy for Iraq , but
the following makes me think;
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the
AthenianRepublic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which
is always followed by chaos."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those
200 years, those nations always progressed through the following
sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
A Lawman Speaks for Liberty
This letter is the first ever written by Police Officer Jack McLamb, of the Phoenix Police Department (1979), to his fellow police officers nationwide. It would later lead to the founding of his international police publication - Aid & Abet Police Newsletter: Constitutional Issues for Lawmen. The publication has since been expanded to include the U.S. National Guard, Coast Guard, and military personnel.
After spending a number of years in law enforcement and at the same time working closely with citizen groups in the city, state and country on various programs, I have fortunately gained a fair understanding as to what citizens think and feel about police officers in their communities.
Of all the different citizens' attitudes and beliefs that I have encountered (including some misconceptions) there is one in particular which seriously affects my own and other officers' attempts to establish a trusting and close relationship with fellow citizens, both in our business and private lives. Let me explain.
There are literally millions of citizens today who have awakened to understand the causes of many of our national problems; thousands upon thousands more join their ranks each month. These citizens are actively attacking the source of these problems, and specifically, they mean to hold government responsible for the part it has played.
People are discovering that government is purposely involved in various actions that are injurious to our society, not to mention illegal in certain cases. They, the citizens, don't understand why we, as law enforcement officers, don't join them in the attack against such wrongful activities. Many have long since decided that it is because police officers have sworn allegiance to "the system", to the government, and that it is the government that is most sacred in our eyes. This group of involved citizens believes that, even though we may be very much aware of the wrongs committed by government officers, we, like many other government officials, believe that "the end somehow justifies the means".
As an example, one large city police department, along with its state criminal justice system, tried to push an unconstitutional bill through the legislature. This bill, if passed, would have allowed law officers to gain evidence illegally, as long as they did so "in good faith". They would then be able to use that evidence in the course of prosecuting the accused.
Well, this sounds like the answer to every officer's dreams, doesn't it? After all, we officers would use these tactics only against criminals now, wouldn't we? What do you think the good citizens felt about this "wonderful" new method of fighting crime? The first thing to cross the mind of the intelligent citizen is that his very privacy, security and freedom would now depend upon who might be doing the labeling of who is and who is not a criminal!
Would the Jews become criminals just because they are Jewish? How about the Irish? Officers, take heed of such new "laws". Who knows, one day all people in "low riders" may be labeled as criminals, or perhaps all blonde-haired, blue-eyed people, or people with "afros". "OH, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!" It already is happening here, in America. You may not be aware of it, but thousands of good citizens are labeled as "criminals" each year by the IRS, for example, in the course of their many "investigations". Suppose this agency (or any other) selects YOU next year, after being allowed to gain "evidence" against you UNLAWFULLY, and then use it in court. A plan very similar to this has just been recommended by the President's Task Force on Crime, and may pass into law this year.
The point is this: The citizen sees his God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights increasingly crushed beneath the feet of those who have sworn an oath to uphold and protect those very rights. And he is absolutely right! And why do we lawmen do such things? Because we do not understand that there are those in power in American government who want to destroy this nation. How do they covertly accomplish this goal? They do it under many names. For example, it is done, many times, in the name of "expediency", or behind the cry, "for the good of the people" or "for the good of the majority". And we officers become the evil-doers' ENFORCERS. Is it any wonder that many private citizens see us as part of the big plan, and who, as INSIDERS, will do what we are told to do, regardless?
I have had occasion to expound over and over again to angry groups of good citizens, that the law officer allows these things to continue for the very same reason that most private citizens allow them to continue: They just don't know what is going on. Officers, like private citizens, are not aware of their rights, so how can they know when they are violating or losing them? They are not aware of the laws protecting those rights, so how can they know when there is a violation? l explain that the American Officer is not knowingly taking part in the perpetuation of these violations and crimes against his fellow citizens; for if he were aware, he would know that he is then destroying his own rights as a citizen. Some people now know and understand this truth, namely, that police officers are as misinformed and naive as other good citizens; and just as badly they need to become informed, IF we are to save this nation.
Probably the most serious problem, and the one that I find hardest to excuse to any satisfaction is this: Why are government officials, lawmen included, allowed to raise their right hands and swear to uphold and protect laws that they don't know exist at the moment they take oath, and still today don't know exist. Sound ridiculous? Do you doubt what I just said? Then answer this question: What is the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights? What'?! You don't remember? How about the Eighth Amendment? Forgot that, too, eh? Now get out your oath of once and read: "I _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the State of ______…" You and I, officer, are like protectors and defenders of that vital document, the Constitution. Should we not know what is in it?
I have a confession. Until a knowledgeable citizen showed me my own ignorance concerning these founding documents, I, too, was guilty of this very serious shortcoming. I remember only too well. It was an old gentleman who, after I spoke in front of a large group of citizens one night, asked me these two questions:
1) How could I, an officer of the law, protect citizens' rights if I did not know what they are?
2) How would I know when, in the performance of my duty, I might be infringing on the rights of the citizen, if I were not knowledgeable of those rights?
What could l say? I was terribly embarrassed, and although I could not admit it that night, I knew he was right. This was the real turning point in my life as an American citizen, and as a protector of the People. I began to feel guilty. I started to read and study. There were two books I read right away: The Constitution Explained by Harry Atwood, and The Biggest Con by Irwin Schiff I was never more shocked in my entire life. I was stunned! I couldn't speak for hours after finishing these books. I have since read them several more times, as well as many others similar in theme.
My life has changed from that time till this. I spent the next two years studying and checking facts. I became "mad" at myself and "mad'' at my fellow citizens, both public and private, for allowing this to happen over the years. I was furious with the government for the atrocities it had been committing, and above all for hooking me into their perpetration!
From that time until now, my goal has been to share what I have learned with my fellow lawmen, hoping that they in turn will share these things with other officers and with their own families. In this way we may join the millions of other good Americans across the country who have decided to stand up and fight for this God-given Land called America. We must secure it once and for all from those traitors within our own system who wish to continue having their way with our liberties and freedoms.
And so I ask: Are you an informed officer? If you are, you will be able to answer the next four questions with ease.
Name one well known, national organization that has been in business for many years, whose goals include that of systematically opposing and deterring any laws designed to curb crime or protect the public. (If you guessed the ACLU, you were correct.)
Is it possible at this time for the President of the U.S. to take complete dictatorial control over this country within 24 hours?
As of November 1980 is it now possible to "arrest" the leaders in the criminal justice system for criminal injustices against the victims of crime?
Is a national police force now being formed? I believe the answers to these questions will shock most officers. The correct answers to questions like these can be vital to the law officer. So why don't more officers have the answers, when so many citizens do? I know why, and you should too. If you're curious about the answers to any of these questions, I'd be very pleased to share them with you. Send a self-addressed, stamped envelope (and perhaps a little to cover copying costs) to my home at (address obsolete)
I wish to share one last thought with you, brothers and sisters: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE. Sound familiar? I recall some years back when thousands of dedicated officers were, put to death, each one stating: "I WAS ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS.'' (Remember Nuremberg?)
The writing is once again on the wall, my fellow officers. You and I, and all government officials, have a heavy responsibility to our countrymen. The SOUNDS OF LIBERTY DYING are all about us. We can ignore those sounds further, but we will hear them again and again, and one day so loudly that we will no longer be able to ignore them ever again. May it not be too late!
Yours in Freedom,
Officer Gerald "Jack" McLamb
Courtesy
Bryan
http://www.jackmclamb.com/Articles/LawmanSpeaksLiberty.htm