[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: AMERICAN VS. UN-AMERICAN IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE A shocking news report recently came across my desk (Associated Press, 30 April 2007, by H. R. Weber). It revealed the tragic account of a 92-year old woman, Kathryn Johnston, who was killed (murdered) by police officers in Atlanta, Georgia, when they made a forceful, "no knock" drug raid on her home on November 21, 2006. According to the report, this spunky lady kept a loaded gun in her home (which is something that every red-blooded American should also be doing these days). When the police, in plain clothes, came bursting through her door without warning, she fired at them. The police retaliated by firing 39 shots, with only five or six hitting her. She was killed by one hit in her chest. (It seems that those "brave" policemen need more training to improve their shooting skills!) After discovering that their raid was made on an innocent victim and that there were no drugs anywhere, members of the drug unit proceeded to "doctor up" the scene by planting three bags of marijuana in Kathryn’s home as part of their cover story. But the truth came out anyway! Two of the officers were charged with felony murder, violation of oath of office, criminal solicitation, burglary, aggravated assault with deadly weapon, and making false statements. But, through plea bargaining, the two were able to evade the murder charge by agreeing to plead guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to violate a person’s civil rights resulting in death. Both officers now face only 10 to 12 years in prison instead of life in prison for murder. A third officer, now on administrative leave, still faces charges. A spokesman for Kathryn’s family stated that the family was satisfied with the sentences since they are only interested in "justice" and not "revenge." ***** Here are some points to consider, not necessarily in order of importance, about the sad fate of Kathryn Johnston: 1. Critics might contend that Kathryn would still be alive if she had not kept a gun in her home. True, but that argument avoids the issue! There are many constitutionally protected rights that citizens could give up in order to save their life or to evade harassment from tyrannical governmental authorities, but doing so results in slavery! This spunky elderly lady had every right to follow the historic American practice of having a gun in her home for protection against thugs and robbers, be they either private individuals or the kind of hired thugs who increasingly seem to be attracted to police work. What is American, and what is un-American in our society today? Certainly it is historic Americanism for people to be armed, as was Kathryn Johnston. Many people today mistakenly think that the issue of gun rights revolves around getting a license to hunt for deer or other game during hunting season. How senseless! Americans historically had the freedom to go hunting anytime they wanted to long before state legislatures robbed them of that historic freedom by passing bills that now require citizens to pay for a hunting license. When I was a boy, we were taught to respect police officers; and we did respect them because long ago most officers were actually trustworthy and generally adhered to their oath of office "to protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." But time brings changes, and some changes definitely have not been in the best interests of the people. 2. One of these changes is our un-American "War on Drugs" which was brought about by the multi-tons of drugs that have been flown into our country every year by the CIA, especially since the War in Vietnam. This also is definitely un-American! George H. W. Bush supervised much of this massive, illegal drug smuggling into our country while he was head of the CIA, during his vice-presidency, and also while he was president. Barry Seal, one of the CIA pilots who, for years piloted one of the CIA’s drug planes, claimed that George H. W. Bush’s sons – Jeb and George W. – were once passengers on his plane when he was piloting drugs into America (They knew!). On that occasion Barry Seal was secretly cooperating with the DEA, and the plane was scheduled for a "drug bust." But, when high officials in the DEA were advised of the presence of sons Jeb and George W. on the plane, the "bust" was called off. Seal claimed to have a video as proof, but it was appropriated by the FBI after he was murdered. (See: Daniel Hopsicker, Barry & ‘the boys,’ Mad Cow Press, 2001, 311-326). The so-called "War on Drugs" has filled America’s prisons with over a million minor offenders of our drug laws, but it has discretely looked the other way when high-placed political "big fish" in the White House, in the Congress, and elsewhere in Washington, D. C., as well as in our various state capitols (especially in Arkansas) have been free to imbibe drugs without the least threat of exposure or punishment. Oh my! why don’t some of our highly paid Secret Service agents speak up? What highly guarded secrets they might reveal! Question: What would happen if one of the many Secret Service agents – who are assigned to protect our Presidents, Vice Presidents, and other high-placed politicians and bureaucrats – should have enough intestinal fortitude to actually arrest one or more of them for breaking drug laws? Are we still a nation that is supposed to be ruled by law, or have we degenerated into a nation in which the law applies only to the common people? Remember, every Secret Service agent also takes the above-mentioned oath of office! When the law applies only to the common people, and not also to high-placed political rulers (definitely an un-American practice), political tyranny and social chaos are the inevitable results. In any country, but especially in a democratic republic like America, the higher the office, the more strictly office holders should be expected to personally adhere to and uphold the law as an example to others. But, it is sad to report that, in reality, the higher the office, the more leeway seems to be allowed for breaking laws. Instead of our high-placed political leaders being arrested, prosecuted, and punished when they break the law, the American public seems to be satisfied when these malefactors are boosted to high-paying sinecures at taxpayers’ expense. This, my dear friends, should not be! 3. The judicial process of plea bargaining is the downfall of "rule by law" in America. The scum who murdered Kathryn Johnston, and then maliciously attempted to make her look like a drug abuser, should have been held to the penalty of law just as any non-uniformed citizen would have been. The biblical answer for murder is death, not imprisonment; and those who scheme to hurt another person should suffer the same fate they impose wrongly on the innocent person. So, if I were a member of Kathryn’s family, I definitely would not have been satisfied with the light sentences that resulted from the law-subverting process of plea bargaining. 4. What is definitely un-American is the ubiquitous existence today of armed SWAT teams and armed police who forcefully break into peoples’ homes, usually in the dead of night, on the alleged suspicion that they "might have drugs," that they "might be terrorists," or some other concocted story. Hardly a week goes by that we don’t hear of someone being "tasered" by heavy-handed "cops" or that the wrong home was targeted. Breaking into citizens’ homes is a blatant police-state tactic. It has nothing at all to do with public safety. But it has everything to do with making a captive populace to live in fearful subservience to the dictates of political tyrants and their hired thugs. 5. The latest "twist" in the Bush Administration’s goal of quietly militarizing local police forces (under the guise of its declared wars on drugs and suspected terrorists) is indeed shocking: The Department of Homeland Security has been using taxpayers’ money to arm local police forces with heavy armored vehicles that have turrets and gun ports, at a cost of over $250,000 each. The purpose is to impress on the public the fact that the police have overwhelming power to put down any citizen show of discontent. And the chaotic events that the police are called on to "put down" under the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" can easily be "engineered" by the political authorities. This growth of raw police-state power is definitely un-American. It’s high time that patriotic Americans take steps to stop such shows of police-state tyranny! I pray daily that our Lord will raise up intermediate magistrates who will interpose themselves between lawless political tyrants and the long-suffering American populace whom they are tyrannizing. This action by intermediate magistrates is known by the term "governmental interposition" – and it is both biblical and historically American. It is this ever-present need to "rein in" lawless political leaders that man’s inherent right to own and bear arms is all about. The Second Amendment to our national constitution states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In short, America’s founding fathers understood that "open season" on errant political leaders begins on the day they become lawless, i.e., when they turn into tyrants. And our founding fathers wanted American citizens to have the forceful means at hand for unseating lawless rulers when and if the need arose. Thomas Jefferson, in writing to his young nephew, Peter Carr, in 1785 gave this advice: Give about two [hours] of them, every day, to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Writings, The Library of America, 1984, 816) The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where I reside, has this to say about the right to bear arms: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (Section 21) 6. Finally, let’s look at the matter of drugs, which was the alleged cause of the forceful police raid on Kathryn’s home: For many years it was legal for American citizens to imbibe in drugs, yet we had no widespread drug problem or Mafia-type organized "drug lords" pushing illegal drugs in America. In fact, the main problem centered around drugs in the early 1900's was that the medical profession too freely recommended drugs as "cures" and pain killers. Today the medical profession, in collusion with large pharmaceutical companies, legally prescribe many harmful drugs to an unsuspecting public – so not much has changed in this regard. Outlawing drugs produces an important and inescapable economic effect – it causes the price of drugs to soar upward. Years ago when I was much younger and still had much to learn, I served as manager of the Chamber of Commerce in a small town about 20 miles north of the Kansas-Oklahoma border. When Oklahoma held a referendum in 1958 to determine whether to "go wet" or to "stay dry," I posed a question to the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who owned a liquor-distributing company: "John, I guess you want the vote to be in favor of going ‘wet,’ is that right?" He laughingly replied, "Oh no! You misunderstand. Most of our business right now is from Oklahoma, and we would certainly lose that business if Oklahoma goes wet!" Oklahoma stayed "dry," and John’s business didn’t suffer! Would the CIA, a truly un-American institution and the greatest single importer of drugs into America, be in favor of legalizing drugs? Hardly, because the black market for drugs would then disappear, and the price of illicit drugs would plummet. This would have a detrimental effect on the CIA’s ability to raise "off-budget funds" for its covert activities overseas (as well as domestically). And eliminating the illegality of drug use and drug possession (which would end the artificially high price of drugs on the street) would rapidly put existing illicit drug cartels out of business. These effects would certainly be good for sowing peace instead of chaos, both in America and throughout the world. But this would then reduce the need for CIA agents to be employed in bringing drugs into our country, and this would also reduce the need to employ so many anti-drug agents in the DEA and other government agencies. I have never heard of a government agency that favored a cut in its work force or budget. Think of the unemployment that would be created! Decriminalizing drugs would certainly stem the importation of illegal drugs into America, thus ending our expensive and freedom-robbing "War on Drugs." It would lead to the freeing of many petty drug offenders who are now living at the expense of taxpayers in prisons all over America. (Remember, high-placed drug abusers in government and those with top-level political influence have never been pursued or punished for breaking drug laws.) 7. How would decriminalization of drugs work in practice? Some things would remain the same, and others would change: Present and past presidents and members of their administrations and high-placed government officials (elected and appointed), as indicated above, would still be free to imbibe; but members of the Secret Service and other "protectors" of high-ranking officials would no longer be in the position of experiencing guilt feelings because of their failure to evenly apply the principles of law equally to all citizens. If you happen to be unaware of the drug-use problem in high government positions, my gentle suggestion is that you wake up to reality! Problems are never solved by wearing rose-colored glasses. Parents would no longer have to fear that their children will be exposed to drug pushers at school or elsewhere, because drug pushers and their suppliers (the CIA and their protected drug-running compatriots) would find that a free-market in drugs with its lower prices would no longer support such illicit underground activities. Their market would evaporate overnight. Problem solved! Suggestion: Parents, if you really love your children, take them out of tax-supported schools and either home-school them, or send them to private Christian schools! Financial help is readily available if you investigate. 8. But not every problem is yet solved: Under such a "regime change," drugs for under-age children (under age 18-21?) should still be off limits legally, just as alcohol and tobacco are off limits today. Anyone supplying drugs to under-age persons should be severely punished (death penalty or hand cut off?) And any adult found guilty of harming someone while under the influence of drugs would be held responsible under the law as if he or she were in full control of their senses. This is the way that drunk drivers should be treated today. After all, drug and alcohol users make a conscious decision to imbibe, and along with the decision to imbibe comes the moral responsibility and legal liability to stay in control of their actions. The concept of self-responsibility is both biblical and American. The biblical rule is that each individual should keep control of his or her own body as a means of being self-responsible to God. This is what much of Western law is all about. We legally treat the possession and use of alcohol and drugs differently at this time, and this explains why different problems result. A free market for alcohol produces relatively low prices and causes hardly any problems in the securing of alcohol. What few problems do occur from a free market in alcohol is largely limited to the after-use actions of the relatively few individuals who drink to the point of inebriation: automobile accidents, spousal abuse, and drunken brawls. As a boy, I still remember the disgusting sight of two drunk girls wallowing in a wet street gutter while fighting over a boy! So, the only alternative to a free market I can see is to minutely control or imprison everyone so that no one can abuse either alcohol or drugs, which is certainly no solution at all. On the other hand, the present drug scenario in which it is illegal to possess or use drugs produces an entirely different problem. Declaring the possession or use of drugs to be illegal causes the price of drugs at the street level to soar upward. This artificial boost in price serves to make illicit drug suppliers and pushers rich, and it creates a vicious world-wide illicit trade in drugs: From the replanting of poppy fields in Afghanistan after the U.S. military eliminated the Taliban regime and installed the puppet Northern Alliance in its place. To the transport of drugs through the "Golden Triangle" to these USA – by the CIA and other illicit drug runners. Thus, high prices in America serves to attract drugs from all over the world. And the artificially high-priced, illegal drugs induce all kinds of law breaking to secure drugs: theft, robbery, murder, deviant sex, the world-wide trade in prostitution and slavery, etc. Americans learned from experience that the years of alcohol prohibition generated much gangsterism and alcoholic abuse, so the Prohibition Act was annulled. But we seem as yet unable to make the obvious correlation concerning the legal prohibition of drugs. I realize that the issues of drugs and alcohol are stressful to consider, but we must do our best to free ourselves from preconceived mind-sets and think the issues through to workable conclusions. My hope is that this essay will help shed much needed light, for the benefit of all. Think on these things and make up your own mind.
Poster Comment: A better outcome would have been if the old lady would have wasted everyone of those illegal police invaders.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|