Granted this abuse is a relatively insignificant case, and if the abusing police officer is found to have an inability to separate his family problems from his professional work, he will most likely be removed from duty, reprimanded and/or punished. But what about an officer that arises to the position of U.S. President? What if HE has family problems or he's psychopathic? What if he has emotional "charge over a family member? What if he disdains or is in competition with his father or mother? What if he takes an entire nation to war just so he can prove something to his father or "get even." In this case, THIS government official is putting at risk and/or destroying the lives of thousands or millions of citizens -- over personal or emotional reasons, perhaps "reasons" that are psychopathic.
Given the potential liabilities government officials can be to the citizenry, both at the local as well as state and federal levels, is it unreasonable for the public to demand that public officials be mentally balanced? At the very least is it unreasonable to demand such public officials are NOT one of the 1% that experts estimate in the general population to be pathological?
Shouldn't all government officials thus be required to take psychiatric or psychological tests before being permitted to serve? Shouldn't they at the very least be required to undergo an evaluation by an auditor and/or ethics officer at the Church of Scientology. One might feel this is harsh or Orwellian, and all individuals should be considered innocent (sane) unless proven guilty, but is this pragmatic? Is it any less fair than how public officials treat citizens in certain cases? After all, local police at their discretion under "law" can deem a citizen to be "driving under the influence" unless that citizen submits to a chemical drug test. If the citizen refuses the drug test on grounds of invasion of privacy, a Constitutional guarantee, the citizen is "assumed" to be "under the influence" and is therefore branded a "criminal" by the state complete with a "criminal" record that could prevent him or her from gaining employment in the future.
If government officials can brand citizens as "criminals" for refusing to submit to chemical tests to "prove" they are "normal," why doesn't the citizen have the same right to require that a candidate for public office demonstrate they are normal -- at the very least NOT the 1% pathological -- by submitting to a brain scan, chemical test and/or a psychological evaluation? Again, as discussed above, that cop or public official, if admitted into a position of authority or power, can do far more damage to society than a person accused of "driving under the influence".(5) The state is permitted to invade the citizen's biology in order to verify sobriety, but the citizen is not permitted to test the state in order to verify its sanity. This is at its best a serious double standard. If police and local governments are permitted to classified citizens as "criminals" unless they submit to blood or urine tests when demanded, then citizens have the right to demand that their elected officials must submit to brain scans and/or psychiatric evaluation before being permitted to govern.
To the degree society can identify, remove or rehabilitate psychopathic personalities, such as the one shown in the video and the more covert cases active in government now, that society will be in a better position to gently move this nation back to Constitutional principles. As it stands now, the so-called "war on terror" and the alleged criminal activities of the Bush Administration have encouraged psychopathic behavior to emerge in all levels of government, from policeman beating 15-year olders to congressman beating the public with legislation (like the Patriot Act, NATFA and Glass-Owen) to the President condoning and/or using torture -- all in violation of the Bill of Rights and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
To find out how you can ensure such personalities don't get into public office and find out how you can deal with them when they do, study and apply an article entitled OVERTHROWING THE CORPORATE GOVERNMENT found at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/overthrow.htm. Forward this article to other concerned citizens. Then watch a documentary featuring Ron Paul entitled, "FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution" to get a better idea how a tyrannical government illegally funds its operations. The documentary is on Google Video or can be accessed at http://www.FiatEmpire.com. Lastly, if you agree we're onto something, support us in our effort to produce a new documentary on the U.S. Constitution entitled, "ORIGINAL INTENT - How Cultural Marxism and Corporate Fascism are Undermining the American Constitution" featuring Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, G. Edward Griffin and Edwin Vieira such at http://www.FiatEmpire.com/producers.
(1) Note, there are an increasing number of similar videos on the Net. Here are a few additional videos catching police brutality in the act. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qys_EfmZdnM&NR=1 and click here
(2) This author once took an informal survey at the voting booth and found that 90% of the people addressed, including the people administering the voting machines, could NOT name or differentiate the incumbents from the new candidates on the ballot. See the raw data from this survey at click here and the article discussing same at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/overthrow.htm
(4) Source: click here from Maclean's Mag
In his 1993 book, Without Conscience: the Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, Hare says that confusion arises because people routinely mix up the words "psychopath" and "psycho," which is a slang expression for psychotic. The distinction is that individuals who are actively psychotic are out of touch with reality because they suffer from delusions, hallucinations or other disordered states. When they commit a violent crime, they are often found not guilty by reason of insanity and are incarcerated in a psychiatric facility rather than a jail. Psychopaths, on the other hand, are rational and quite aware of the difference between right and wrong. Clinical psychologists have refined the definition of a psychopath over decades of research. Typically, psychopaths are charming, self-interested, glib and impulsive individuals. They often brag about grandiose life ambitions but utterly lack the skills or discipline to achieve any of their goals. Psychopaths are easily bored and crave immediate self-gratification. When caught in a lie, they quickly switch topics - or shift blame - with no apparent embarrassment. They do not form deep or meaningful attachments, and often end up hurting people who get close to them. While they are intellectually aware of society's rules, they feel no guilt when they break them. Viewed through that prism, Hare says that Paul Bernardo, a serial rapist who graduated to serial killing, is clearly a psychopath rather than a psychotic. "Bernardo was a cold-blooded predator lacking in remorse," declares Hare. "He is a perfect example of a psychopath."
(5) DUI blood-alcohol limits are totally arbitrary unless correlated to the subject's weight, metabolism and amount and type of food in their stomachs. Thus a citizen has little or no way of knowing when they have reached the legal limit. Increasingly over the past 20 years local governments have been lowering the threshold so as to catch up more citizens in this revenue-generating net. DUIs have become a profitable business for the state and parasitic lawyers who send out solicitations to defendants immediately after the summons is filed with the local DJ (District Judge).
25 April 2009