PUBLIC SAFETY: Food For Thought
Public Safety has long served as a government cry although history suggests that this has never been an essential element of government.
DANGER, DANGER, The Sky Is Falling and We Must Keep You Safe? Your rights and freedoms are stripped away as the protocol to keep us all safe. However, what we find is that this ideology causes more problems then it solves.
The question posed here is: How has Public Saftey impacted your life?
The (BLM) movement, in addition to being one of the most visible activist movements to come along in the United States in several decades, have helped underscore several societal crises. For example, the failure of the establishment media and the rise of police brutality, the disappearance of public space, and also disintegrating civil liberties, to name only a few.
On the surface (BLM) has also served as a reminder of the ever-present police state. We’ve witnessed this in obvious, overt, batshit crazy behavior like police using horses to stampede into a Portland, Oregon crowd as they turned the city into a war zone. The Corporate Media by extension fails to inform the public how the government use law as a weapon, or a convenient scapegoat, to control a rebellious faction of the population.
(BLM), is a story within a story within a story. The movement largely serves as a distraction for on the most critical issues of disparity, the movement offers no viable solutions to the healing of a crumbling nation or police brutality.
After all, (BLM) has a convicted Domestic Terrorist, Susan Rosenberg on its board.
An article published in 1991 and showcased here, tells the tale of how we have all been hoodwinked.
In this chaotic climate in which the “powers that be” are scrambling to keep power, control, and white supremacy in tow, I felt that it is time to reexamine this piece.
PUBLIC DANGER DISGUISED AS PUBLIC SAFETY
by Randy L. Geiszler
Behold! Newsletter – Copyright April, 1991
Does the State have the power to create agencies and mandatory regulatory statutes and rules upon the Citizen in a “free” Republic. The positive answer that the State has seemingly given this question, by calling our governmental institutions a “democracy,” has disturbed if not destroyed the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (property) of every Citizen in the United States of America, rights which the Declaration of Independence (1776) declared are unalienable for our “one people.”
The legitimate regulatory authority of the legislative bodies of the State, or its statutory agencies, cannot and does not extend generally to the Citizen in a “free” constitutional Republic. Of course this statement is both obnoxious and rebellious to a legislature which has enacted legislation, and to agencies which have promulgated regulations, which either give pretense of or which actually are applied to the citizenry generally.
This is not to say that such legislation or regulations cannot be enacted or promulgated, but rather that such regulatory enactments can only act as a guide to the general citizenry and a guide to the courts which adjudicate actual cases and controversies between Citizens in civil cases, or as a guide to the courts in determining culpability for crimes in criminal cases.
In other words, in a “free” constitutional Republic, the State can only inform the Citizen of the safest conduct for his well being and the well being of other Citizens, but cannot arbitrarily penalize any Citizen for not following such guidance.
All public authorities that enact or promulgate mandatory statutes or regulations which interfere with the Citizens’ right and ability to dispose of his or her own life, liberty or property are always enacted or promulgated under the guise of “public safety” or “public welfare,” in a pretended exercise of “police powers.”
Modern legislatures and agencies in the United States of America would have us Citizens (We the People) believe that they are empowered to interfere with our lives, liberties, and property to any extent they wish under said devices. This cannot be true, nor is the legal theory consistent with the institutions of liberty that govern a “free” constitutional Republic.
The general abuse of “police powers” under the guise of “public safety and welfare” is a destroyer of the Citizens’ rights to life, liberty and property and prevents his natural pursuit of happiness. In the wake of mandatory provisions of regulatory statutes and rules, the Citizen’s rights are declared inoperative or void, except and unless the Citizen requests and obtains special permission of the State in the form of statutory licenses, permits and other legal devices.
This is the general appellation given to modern regulatory law. Such a mechanism is, of course, repugnant to the very meaning of the word “right” and therefore must be considered to constitute a “wrong” in a “free” constitutional Republic.
In a “free” constitutional Republic, the State was created with the specific and central intent of protecting the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the Citizen, therefore, the State cannot justify a derogation or destruction of those rights in the name of protecting them.
Such a theory of law is logically contradictory and impossible and must be considered as a treason to the institutions of a “free” Republic as it is contrary to its constitution and represents the overthrow of the Republican form of Government guaranteed to the Several States in the United States of America. (Article 4, Section 4, Const. for U.S.A.) Such a theory of law employs the philosophy that the means justifies the end, a communist (socialist) and fascist (Nazi) philosophy.
It is impossible to accomplish the end espoused by the State (public safety and welfare) by means which are contrary to that end.
The end never justifies the means because, when the means are inconsistent with the end, the end cannot be accomplished. Only the means can justify the end, since only means consistent with the end can bring that end about. This is the Christian legal and spiritual philosophy of a “free” Republic.
None the less, even in a “free” Republic, the State has a limited duty and authority to protect the whole citizenry (public), which appears on the surface to be in contradiction to the rights of the individual Citizen. But this can be explained and shown in reality not to be a contradiction, provided, every act of the State promotes the rights of all the Citizens individually, above all other considerations, to promote the good of the whole citizenry.
If the rights of each Citizen are promoted to the highest rank and fullest protection, as was done with the founding of American Republican States and their limited central government, the safety of the whole citizenry (public) is at the highest level that can be attained in an imperfect world. On the other hand, when the State endeavors to deprive rights of the Citizen, under the guise of “public safety and welfare” the State brings to the citizenry, individually and as a whole, the greatest danger to their peace, safety and welfare.
Modern regulatory legislation in the United States of America, both State and Federal, has brought public safety and welfare to an all time low by depriving the Citizen of even so much as a livelihood. One cannot even have a livelihood without a request and grant of permission of the State, therefore the Citizen today doesn’t even have the “right” to live, in the eyes of the State.
American regulatory authorities and the powers they exercise are foisted upon us Citizens today and are enforced by statutory, mandatory and punitive, civil and criminal penalties, fines and forfeitures, which are imposed upon the Citizen for failure to strictly obey the commands of the State. What can only be justified as a “recommendation” in a “free” Republic has been converted into a “command” in a tyrannical democracy.
What is complained of here is not the “police power” of the State generally or efforts of the State to merely inform the whole citizenry of conduct most conducive to their peace, safety and happiness. What is complained of here is the abuse of both the “police power” by the mandatory aspect (force imposed by the State by use of fines, penalties, forfeitures and ultimately the gun) of modern regulatory legislation.
Such force put against the Citizen, without his consent, in a “free” Republic, is an unwarranted and unconstitutional abuse of power and treason to the “free” Republican State and the people who ordained and established it.
Because of the contrast between “public rights” and “private rights,” the modern State in America has claimed it must create and perform some kind of circus balancing act, between the rights of individual Citizens and the citizenry as a whole, to justify the slow but sure erosion of the Citizens’ heritage and birthright.
For instance, the State has claimed we Citizens must justify to the State how, when, where and why we use real property under the pretense of protecting other Citizens from damage resulting from abusive practices of the property owner, all without complaint from any individual Citizen.
The State has also claimed we Citizens must make similar justification and request similar permission with respect to motor vehicles, water, air, forest products, rearing, education and disciplining of our children and the disposition of any form of personal property or personal life imaginable. The State even claims authority, by licensing statutes, to prevent the most natural and necessary act of our species for survival, the act of marriage.
If you were merely to scan the mired and voluminous State and federal codes of so called law in America, you would soon find and realize that all aspects of American life of the Citizen have been made the subject of public (State) inquiry and mandatory regulation.
All of this has transpired even though our original institutions of a “free” republic offer and require an alternative which truly promotes “public safety and welfare,” and the rights of the Citizen simultaneously while being consistent with the spirit and intent of the constitutional establishment of a “free” Republic.
The liberty of the Citizen, and the theory of law thereunder, can be reestablished with little change in modern American law. Simply, we must stop allowing the legislative branch of government from usurping the judicial power of the courts, which where intended to provide and enforce the protections of life, liberty and property due to the Citizen.
For instance, the legislative branch of government may declare the proper direction for traffic to flow on a highway or declare a safe speed based upon factual studies and data, but the legislature cannot arbitrarily prohibit the Citizen from acting outside the direction of the legislature by imposing fines or imprisonment for noncompliance.
The judicial power vested in constitutional courts must be left to freely determine rights, liabilities, damage, culpability and other factors related to actual damages or endangerment of one Citizen by another.
In other words, if a car goes over the center line on a highway and no one is endangered or damaged, there is no cause of court action and the party cannot be punished while, on the other hand if some one is damaged or endangered, the fact that the line was crossed is evidence against the offending Citizen to convict him of either civil damages or a criminal offense by a common law jury.
Thus, the State retains the power to prescribe a rule of civil conduct where no natural rule exists and where necessary to the peace, safety and happiness of all Citizens, none the less, the rule can only be enforced through the injury or eminent injury of another Citizen, and can only be enforced in a court of law or equity under proper allegation of the party or parties put at risk by the misconduct of another Citizen.
This prevents the arbitrary action of a tyrant State while leaving the State its legitimate “police power” functions in a “free” Republic, providing the Citizen with the mechanism and rules of conduct, were no natural rule exists, to determine fault and liability in civil cases and culpability and crime in criminal cases.
All statutes and regulations of the State in our original “free” Republic, which do not hold to the standard just stated are obscure forms of a “Bill of Attainder” outlawed by Article I, Section 10, Constitution for the United States of America, imposed upon statutorily defined classes of “persons.”
The American Citizen (several State Citizens) must rebuke this tyranny and refuse its application to them. The Citizen must abandon the communist and fascist scheme of allowing the State to impose an arbitrary will upon them or there co-heirs under the guise of public health, safety or welfare.
The Citizen must assume responsibility for himself and deprive the State of waivers and consent to be regulated in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The Citizen must use the judicial power vested in constitutional courts for the protection their life, liberty and happiness and must absolutely deny the legislative and executive branches of government from pretending to provide such protections by the arbitrary means of a tyrant.
The bottom line is: If you want to have the liberty that a “free” Republic was intended to establish and the right to live your own life as you see fit, you must act like a “free” Citizen even though a usurpatious State would have you be a serf, subject or slave. In other words, when you see the authorities, national or State, overthrowing the Republic of America or the several States therein, it’s time to stand up and say no.
Keep the above arguments in mind for the next time a judge accuses you, as a patriot, of refusing to abide by any form of law. This argument will make it clear that the State in its modern condition has become lawless, not the “free” Citizen.
To clarify what has been said in this article it must made clear that only a member of the original body politic or their posterity can absolutely claim the rights herein mentioned.
The internal parts, officers or statutory “persons” of the government cannot make this claim. That is, on who has citizenship by special statutory privilege of the Fourteenth Amendment, one who became a member of the body politic of Social Security.
By obtaining the statutory privilege of a Social Security Account, or anyone who has waive their rights for statutory privileges, licences and etc. cannot make the forgoing claims about the “police power” because he is directly amenable to the legislature for his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as a matter of his own request and consent.
In fact, the reason that the “police power” is so expanded today, when it should only apply to the government itself, is because in one way or another most white Americans have become an internal part of the government, while all persons of color are subject to martial law rule as a consequence of the Civil War and statutes and privileges related thereto.
Therefore, the above arguments about the “police power” are reserved only to the Citizen within the original meaning. That is, the legal principles which validate these arguments are reserved only to free white Citizens, who have asked nothing of the government.