Now, his hometown has ten if the individual answering telephone calls at the police station is correct. To justify this increase, one would think that the population or crime would have had to increase. However, the population has decreased by about 34 percent, from approximately 6800 to almost 4500 so this cannot be the justification.

Has real crime increased by at least 34 percent? By �real�, the writer means crime defined as one citizen violating the rights of another citizen. Or has there been an increase in �victimless� crimes? I.e., has there been an apparent increase in crime due to unconstitutional laws being made, meaning that innocent acts based on exercising rights that were not crimes now are considered crimes by government.

Police officers were known as peace officers, with the primary responsibility to preserve the peace. This means to maintain a community free from quarrels, to maintain harmonious relations, and to maintain public security and order.

State statutes reflect this in that officers haven�t any duty to investigate crimes (or to answer 911 calls). Basically, city police have the responsibility to assure city ordinances concerning public places are obeyed. This includes traffic on streets and alleys, behaviors in public parks, ordinances concerned with public buildings, and other public owned facilities. In other words, their job is to assure the people have a well-maintained public atmosphere free of strife or tension caused by another citizen.

Communities never had peace officers until recently in Man�s history. The citizens took care of wrongdoers who upset the sense of well being of the community. Those committing actual crimes were caught (hopefully) and punished, with appropriate redress to victims.

The writer rarely sees any confrontation between the citizens as the writer walks, rides his bicycle, or drives around his community. In fact, in the past four and a half years, the writer has not seen one altercation between citizens, or a driver who was endangering others, or any other behavior by one citizen against another that might be deemed as interfering with the rights of the latter. In other words, no �crime� has been observed even though the writer seldom sees patrolling police.

His neighborhood is quiet even though a few young people who live close sometimes go by with their radios in their pickups or cars a bit loud but this seldom occurs after nine or ten in the evening. Somehow, it creates a sense of well-being. We in the neighborhood, although civil with each other, do not by choice interfere in the lives of others. We live and let live. Peace reigns.

That is � until law enforcement enters the picture. The only time the writer�s peace and serenity has been disturbed was by law enforcement personnel criminally trespassing on the writer�s property. The intent was to enforce a city ordinance that not only is against the writer�s rights as a citizen and sovereign, but also in violation of state statutes.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter. Somehow in the past 40 years, police officers or peace officers have become enforcers of law. What law is it they enforce?

The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution for the United States of America. It is the written document supporting the unalienable rights of man given to us all by the Creator and fully complies with the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. It states specifically that all self-evident rights will not be infringed upon by any government official and assistants regardless of level and that all courts will obey and rule within the dictates of the Constitution by never ruling against the rights of a citizen.

Law enforcement personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution as do every prosecutor, city official, county official, state official, whether a clerk of a court or a judge. Is this �constitutional law� the �law� in �law enforcement� that is being enforced?

Law-and-order is advocating and following the established social order and the statutes written to enforce such order and a condition in which freedom from disorder or disruption is maintained through respect for established authority (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, 2000). It fundamentally relies on commands or directions from authority being obeyed.

What �established� authority is it that is being obeyed? Is it the authority of the people? Or that given governments by the Constitution? Or no authority at all?

We now have some 20,000 laws concerning firearms. Without reading and analyzing them all, how many are constitutional? Give up? Exactly none. The Constitution through the 2nd Amendment states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is not complicated wording but is, instead, straight forward regardless of how those in government try to change the meaning. The intent is clearly that the militia is the people and that the people keep and bear arms in order to preserve the state of being free, which includes the use of arms against corruptness in government. Thus, the law to be enforced is the right to keep and bear arms.

We have the right to engage in any business we wish using the talents we were given by God. Does government have any authority to tell us when and if we can engage in business? No, it does not. It is a self-evident right and secured by the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. Thus, all fees, licenses, or other permits to engage in a right are unconstitutional (Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105) and should be ignored. Freedom to use talent to run a business is therefore the law to be enforced, not the man-made laws granting government�s permission.

We trade our property, our labor, for earnings that are, in turn, traded for property of equal value (to the seller and buyer and no other party). Therefore, the property is ours free and clear from any proprietorship by any level of government. The use of the private property, whether real (land and buildings), tangible, or intangible, is within the sovereign�s control and not subject to any laws (including tax of any nature) made by man (with the exception of creating a immediate danger to others).

And, yet, there are hundreds of laws that seem to apply to private property. However, they do not. This is made quite clear when one reads the statutes carefully (and damn the unconstitutional rulings by corrupted, politically motivated, and/or ignorant judges). Misleading definitions and phrases include (but is not exclusive to) those for �person�, �when required�, �individual�, �State�, �United States�, �vehicle�, �motor vehicle�, �automobile�, �transportation�, �includes/including�, �State of the United States�, �persons made liable�, �wage�, �employee�, �employer�, �United States person�, �citizen of the United States verses citizen of the United States of America�, �income�, �remuneration�, and �maintaining financial responsibility� to name a few.

All the laws, and who knows how many thousands these now number, are unconstitutional as they infringe upon the unalienable rights of Man.

To make a long story short, �law enforcement� is not the enforcement of the unalienable laws of man as secured by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America. No, indeed. What is being enforced are the man-made laws that infringe upon the rights of the people, those made under color of law. Thus, law enforcement might better be described as �enforcers of tyranny.�

Consider. It takes armed enforcers and considerable coercion to force compliance to laws that are null and void as far as �constitutional law� (the law of the land fought and died for) is concerned. It takes threats, imprisonment, loss of homes, lives, property, and other unlawful, and nearly always illegal, means to �force� the laws be obeyed.

Therefore, we have peace officers who are not peace officers but are, instead, enforcers of unconstitutional laws made by people who do not have the authority to do so. Each person who wears a badge and does anything contrary to the Constitution is a traitor to his oath, to the people he is supposed to serve, and to the very purpose of his job. He is as treasonous as those who order him to carry out some unconstitutional act, such as �spot checks�.

We have peace officers in the past that did behave properly and within the rights of Man. Perhaps those now on police forces have been fooled and possibly coerced to infringing upon the rights of man. Perhaps they do not realize the officers doing so are actually the criminals, not the people they are arresting, particularly for the bogus �victimless� crimes.

If the excuse (as two different cops did when the writer questioned them) �they were told to� is used, that is all it is � an excuse. The intent is to invade and infringe upon rights for self-gain which might be financial (not all but enough that billions in private property is seized every year) or including the sense of power. Each, you see, regardless of any rhetoric to the contrary, has the freedom of choice, either to be an enemy of the liberties of people and a friend of the state or vice versa.

The intent of the leading founders of this nation is made clear with these simple, but eloquent, phrases:

�WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,�� The Declaration of Independence�

Now, the writer asks the reader � Just where in this document, or any other this nation is founded on, does it state that people hired by the public to maintain peace have the power to ignore the rights of the people who pay them to protect their rights?

If we wish to have a nation of liberty, a Republic, we must return all persons who wear a badge or special uniform to the concept of �Peace Officer� and rid ourselves of �law enforcement personnel� who do not enforce the Law of the Land but instead enforce the laws of those who intend to enslave us.

The writer, and apparently the other people in his community, chooses to NOT infringe upon the rights of others. That is his choice and he does not need some armed person who does not choose to do so interfering in his life and committing crimes against him.

We can hope that most of those hired to protect rights feel the same, including police officers, the military, and other government agencies (even though now operating outside the limits of the supreme Law of the Land) and will begin acting accordingly. If not, peace on Earth will not prevail for generations to come. Continued acts of government tyranny will prevent it.