I'm not down with cop bashing. I've known good, decent cops who really do believe it is their job to serve and protect and recognize that citizens are good people. I have friends in blue that are like that. I hate seeing them grouped together with bad cops.
There are bad cops. It seems that we hear about them more frequently. Which makes me think that there are more incidents involving bad cops. I also see the police becoming more militarized. Allegedly this is to protect us from the criminal elements involved with the drug trade. Two states have legalized pot, several more have decriminalized it for medical reasons. More states are seeing the tax revenue generated and are considering a similar approach to legal but taxed. I don't see the cops giving up their cool military toys in Colorado now that pot is no longer a criminal matter.
What about the good cops? What happens why you get a man with integrity that does his job and plays by the rules? What happens when he starts educating himself about constitutional concerns and the rights of citizens and proper methods of law enforcement? What happens if he is the chief of police and leads by example?
If he is in New Mexico, they fire him and any officers they think agree with him. Why do they react this way? Is it because he did something terrible? Why yes it is. That's exactly it. Chief Harger got himself accused by the TSA of attending a meeting of cops who believe in following the Constitution of the United States of America.
Where have all the good cops gone? With the freedom loving citizens. They have to hide from the watchful eyes of big brother, lest they be found out and fired.
Some of my best friends are police ;-)
ReplyDeleteMy hairdresser for the last 26 years is the wife of the police chief where I used to live. I think we are seeing a wholesale "clean out" of anyone in a position of authority who could, or would, stand up for the American people if DC should get it into its head to start a war on us.
ReplyDeleteIt is happening in the military, the police and other elements of authority. The good ones are being replaced by bully types who not only have the big chip on their shoulders, but would love you to try and pick a fight with them.
Thing is though, thanks to a mutual benefit treaty signed at Bush's Crawford ranch on Feb. 14, 2008 with Canada, Obama doesn't have to worry about breaking the Posse Act. He just has to put in a call to Canada for re-enforcements to quell any rioting or other problems.
Jerome Corsi wrote several articles about this treaty Res. It exists, it is not a conspiracy theory.
Some brave souls here think the battle is going to be against our own military. I believe no such thing. Obama would have no problems using Canadian troops, who would have no skin in the game, and no problem shooting American citizens.
I read the report that Big Sis released about 2 years into Obama's first term regarding home grown threats. I can't find my copy, but I believe that these cops are under the "Constitution lovers" banner.
ReplyDeleteI think we are moving towards a functional removal of our civil rights.
ReplyDeleteSusan: "Thing is though, thanks to a mutual benefit treaty signed at Bush's Crawford ranch on Feb. 14, 2008 with Canada, Obama doesn't have to worry about breaking the Posse Act. He just has to put in a call to Canada for re-enforcements to quell any rioting or other problems.
ReplyDelete1. It's Posse Commitatus.
2. Posse Commitatus does not prohibit the use of US military forces to quell rioting, etc. The National Guard (when under command of a state's Governor), and the US Coast Guard (which falls under Department of Homeland Security, rather than Department of Defense), are two examples which are not covered under Posse Commitatus. Furthermore, the entire US military would be allowed to be employed in case of civil insurrection, or when otherwise authorized by Congress (in the case of the Rodney King riots, for example).
3. Posse Commitatus was already further gutted in 2006 by Congress and President Bush to allow US military to be used to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States:
"...as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States...suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy..."
The mutual assistance pact would not even allow use of Canadian military in all instances where Posse Commitatus was suspended, and US military force was allowed to be employed.
4. The agreement with Canada facilitates cooperation between the two militaries, but does not automatically allow "reinforcement" by the other country's troops. Each request for assistance is handled on a case-by-case basis. While it's theoretically possible for the US to request Canadian troops for reinforcement against US civilians, that would not render it acceptable under Posse Commitatus, without those specific exceptions noted earlier. Foreign troops would still fall under the auspices of the DoD; if it is prohibited to US troops, it would also be prohibited by any other nation's troops under a mutual assistance pact.
5. The military agreement is not a violation of the Constitution regarding treaties, etc, because this is an agreement between the two parties that was already in existence due to the creation of NORAD in 1947, and Canadian military forces have been on the ground in the US since then. The intent of the mutual assistance pact is to allow our respective forces to work together more effectively in cases where they already have for years. While some may point to a "slippery slope" and what could eventually happen under this agreement, a whole lot of s--t would already have to have hit the fan before this could even be invoked.
Paranoia regarding FedGov actions is indicated in many instances. IMO, this is not one of them.
Here is an example of the type of aid that the pact was intended to facilitate. With plans already in place, the time overhead associated with coordination between the relevant organizations is minimized.
ReplyDelete