One For Them… One For Us

37
4409
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the news today, an example of the two-tiered system of “justice” that exists in America – one for us and one for them:

Colorado State Rep. Laura Bradford was pulled over by a cop on Jan. 25 after he says he observed her driving erratically. The cop stated he smelled alcohol – and that Bradford admitted to drinking. What do you suppose happened next? Do you suppose that Bradford was ordered out of her vehicle and told she must either submit to a Breathalyzer or blood draw or be arrested on the spot?

That’s what would happen to you or me or any other Ordinary. But it is not what happened to Bradford. She is  lawgiver, you see – and so different laws apply. Hence, she was released  – that is, allowed to drive away – despite the fact that she admitted to drinking and was seen (so the cop stated) to be driving erratically, an indication that she’d had more than just a little to drink.

“She said she had been drinking. The officer smelled alcohol and we gave her roadside tests that gave us indications that we should test her further,” Denver Police Lt. Matt Murray told local media. But she wasn’t tested further. She was instead issued a minor citation (not for DUI, which isn’t minor anywhere) and sent on her way.

It is inconceivable that such courtesy would be extended to an Ordinary. But then, Ordinaries do not have pull.  And Bradford, a Republican lawmaker, does. According to the cops, Bradford can drive erratically, smelling of booze – admitting she’s been drinking booze – and there’s nothing the cops can do because, you see, Bradford’s Binge was protected by Article V, section 16 of the Colorado Constitution – which exempts lawmakers from arrest when they are traveling to or from the legislative assembly.

It does  not matter, apparently, that Bradford was more probably traveling to or from a bar  as it was around 10 P.M. and long after the legislature had closed for the day… but shortly after a fiesta hosted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, at which the hootch flowed freely.

Nor that vehicular manslaughter is a felony.

Granted, Bradford didn’t actually kill anyone. Luckily. But can you imagine the results if you or I or any other Ordinary had been given leave to drive away from a traffic stop despite  our erratic driving, despite reeking of booze and despite admitting to drinking – and 30 minutes later, we blew through a light and killed a minivan full of kids? The truth is that even the faintest whiff of alcohol, the merest suspicion that we’d had anything to drink, would be sufficient excuse to throw us over the hood of the squad car and forcibly draw our blood. We’d be arrested at minimum for declining – and quite likely, Tasered for “resisting.”

Ah, but that it us – and we are talking about them.

Bradford, of course, denies asserting her special status – but such sophistry is as transparent as a new sheet of Plexiglass. She presented her credentials to the cop – and the cop understood. It was not necessary to discuss the matter. She was (is) one of them. Wink, nod. Have a nice day, ma’am.

Interestingly – but not surprisingly – Bradford is a law n’ order fambly values Republican who touts “conservative leadership you can trust.” She is all for limited government – for herself.

But not so much you and I and other Ordinaries.

She is a law n’ order gal who has voted in favor of mandatory DNA sampling upon felony arrest (note, not conviction) but doubtless would not have been pleased had she been subjected to DNA sampling – had she, of course, even been arrested.

I am certain she is “tough” on drunk driving, too. Except when it comes to her drunk driving.

After the story broke, Bradford was suspended from her position as chair of the Colorado House Local Government Committee – and went on air to apologize for her (wait for it) “poor judgment” and – well, you know the rest. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

One hopes – but should not expect – that this experience will give Bradford pause  to reflect on how things might have played out for her had she not been able to invoked “diplomatic immunity.”  That is, had she been one of us rather than one of them.

To be clear: I am not defending drunk or otherwise impaired driving. I am trying to call attention to the hypocrisy that exists – and which has its origins in the different lives lead by us as opposed to them.

They are treated with deference – and given the benefit of every doubt. We are presumed criminal – and treated accordingly. Since they are not treated as presumptive criminals, subjected to probable cause-free stop n’ frisks, denied basic due process and all the rest of it – then such things do not exist and are not to be fretted. What is desperately needed is more shoe-on-the-other-foot. It is good to see Bradford held up to public ridicule. It would be even better to see Bradford, et al. subjected to the same treatment they so routinely mete out to us.

Have you noticed, parenthetically, how upset most cops get when we record them? Sauce for the goose… .

Bradford, to her credit, has voted for less government and more equitable treatment of us Ordinaries. She is not as loathsome as, for example, a personage like NY’s Chuck Schumer or Michael Bloomberg – who would have you or me or any other Ordinary tossed in prison for years merely for possessing a gun yet surround themselves with heavily armed bodyguards. The Chuck Schumers and Michael Bloombergs – and Newties and Romneys – are beyond the reach of reason or even simple empathy for the Other. 

But perhaps Bradford will experience an Awakening – and begin to think more about  what it’s like to be one of us vs. one of them.

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button
SHARE
Previous articleSOPA’s Successor: ACTA
Next articleMr.
Your Libertarian car guy. Er ist weider da...

37 COMMENTS

  1. Of course, the Constitution also protects critters traveling to session. But that applies only to the right kind of critters, like Bradford. No one invoked it to protect, say, Rand Paul.

    • Much less Mere Ordinaries such as you or me.

      We’re forced to stop – and submit to a search – without even the pretext of probable cause. But a member of the ruling class can get pulled over for erratic driving, admit to drinking, smell of booze – and be allowed to go.

  2. blog/dhs.gov/2012/02/superbowl-xlvi-if-you-see-something.html

    Startin to rant now, Boss! Go ahead and rant now, Tor!

    Warden Laura is only conditionally a BOSS in the Cool Hand Luke global chain gang. She can be instantly demoted to taxpayer chain-gang status, and all trace of her former status quickly erased and forgotten. We SENTIENT REMNANT and all rulers and ruled of DER CLOVERLAND are all one step away from THE BOX.

    Due to NATO guidelines, the daily car wash scene is to be performed by Janet Neapolitano until further notice. The WARDENs don’t like it anymore than you men. There is also zero tolerance for unofficial gambling, contests, drinking, eating, smoking, or gatherings of any kind.

    Like all world citizens, we civilians within NORTHCOM get to elect our wardens, that is the extent of our freedom. The rules, chains, roads to be tarred, prison boxes to inhabit, and the rest are all chosen somewhere else in private. It takes an army of R2D2s and C3POs to even glimpse the ever changing megatons of military plans, treaties, alliances, and ISOs that regulate our every step.

    Dare to act without Boss’s permission, you’ll soon hear “What We Have Here Is A Failure to Communicate,” and feel the blows and roll down the hill in the dirt, while CLOVERS laugh and snivel, without cognition. Ignorance of rule ZBMXCMVIII is no excuse.

    You noncoms are free to push buttons and levers and sit in seats of your own choosing. You have a variety of channels to view authorized doers do things on video screens in many formats.

    Don’t miss Super Clover Bowl 46 on the DHS blog. VIPR scans are free for all neighborhood travelers. Its flu season according to the USNorthcom military command, plan your behavior carefully and patriotically. See something, say something, it’s the law, patriots.

    All human effort is now overseen and controlled “com”. Commerce, command, THEY don’t care what word-magic-system you use, they control them all. Your every pitch, yaw, and roll is recorded by them for everyone’s safety. The former freeworld is archived and viewable at earth dot com, your IP is recorded for everyone’s safety.

    Going to join my work gang now, Boss! I have pocketed my Plastic Jesus card embossed with prisoner number and legal address BOSS! God Bless you and all our worldwide brave wardens, BOSS! Go ahead and go to work Tor, DER CLOVERLAND salutes you, Tor!

    • You an original, that’s what you is, Tor.

      I see something, Big Sis. I see a number of suspicious persons. One of them lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There’s another 535 in the big granite building down the street. Well maybe minus a handful but if they could really make a difference with their non-suspicious behavior they’d be guests at Club Gitmo.

      Is this where I report the suspicious activity at the Federal Reserve? What about the National Guard units training in simulated urban environments? Oh no this is just for suspicious backpacks? Ok thanks I’ll try the White House snitch email.

  3. Talking with so many from that WWII era, I’ve gotten the impression that it was WWII that created this “exceptionalist” notion of our society. America saved the fucking world for chirst’s sake, so now we own it; we run it. And that mentality has come home to roost and is being applied to us as well. Not because the gov’t actually feels that way anymore but just because of momentum now. Now it’s just a matter of those in gov’t being able to abuse their positions so they do, but it was that post WWII era that got the ball rolling.

    • What is worrisome of course is that we actually *don’t* own it or run it anymore, and we’re being slow to catch on to the fact. Indeed, the political class does the people the worst disservice imaginable by allowing us to continue in our delusion; they even campaign on the exceptionalist rhetoric because they know that is what we like to hear.

      When you know the truth, this rhetoric is embarrassing. I often imagine people in other countries listening to this bilge and rolling their eyes.

      • So true and that’s exactly how I feel when I here that crap. Romney and Santorum were both spewing it in the debates. Havng lived abroad for much of my adult life, I can tell you how those in other countries feel about it: they resent it. Even the citizens of our closest allies like Germany, France and England. It was the first time, as an exceptional American, I ever felt that resentment but it’s real as common sense would suggest. Another reason I’m a Ron Paul fan: he is correct when he says that American actions breed contempt and resentment. How could it not. I lived it; I felt it. Anyone saying otherwise is an irresponsible, lazy fool.

        • “Anyone saying otherwise is an irresponsible, lazy fool.”

          Or psychotic. And we have a good number of them. The Republican Party is overflowing with them.

      • The idea of exceptionalism isn’t that far removed from the idea of a master race. Perhaps master culture would be a closer match because we have become so ethnically mixed. Although a good number of Americans don’t buy into that baloney it still seems to be the central driving force behind the interventionist-hawk faction in Washington. I mostly view it as a flaw or weakness that makes America prone to being used as a useful idiot on the world stage.

        • And don’t forget: Nazi eugenics were derived from American practices.

          The uncomfortable truth is that Nazism didn’t disappear after the Nuremberg trials. We invented some of it right here, and through Operation Paperclip we imported some of its most heinous practitioners….who are now implementing Nazism 2.0 right here in the Amerikan Heimat.

          Plus ca change…

          • Lovers of the Scandinavian socialist utopias often cool a little bit when they learn those societies practiced eugenics, in some instances into the 1970s.

            Sure you can show it alleviates pressure on the collectivist society when you eliminate “undesirables,” but that whole non-aggression thing….

        • That is an excellent insight! Master culture is ingenious because it’s immune to the catcall of “racism” – and potentially universal.

          I may put together a rant on this….

  4. Not too long ago Bovard did a piece on our two-tier system of justice. He referenced a congressman’s wife who had to go into one of those lifestyles of the rich and famous rehab centers after getting caught with a pharmaceutical drug without a valid doctor’s prescription. In certain respects it was similar to Rush Limbaugh’s brush with the law although Limbaugh did have to pay a $30,000 fine to cover the cost of his investigation before the matter was finally dropped. The news media referred to her brave struggle to overcome her addiction. Bovard pointed out that if a poor inner city black woman had been caught doing the same thing she would have served time in prison.

    • Yes, the media is biased towards our overlords as well. All you hear about when it comes to the shooting in Tuscon, Az last year is Giffords, Giffords, Giffords.

      Why? Who is she? She’s a gov’t employee. She’s an American citizen. That’s it. An American citizen just like the six other American citizens who were actually killed that day. Can anyone name their names? Read any news articles about them?

      Gabe Zimmerman, 30; John Roll, 63; Phyllis Schneck, 79; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwan Stoddard, 76; and Christina Taylor-Green, 9

      What about the others that were also injured that day? Know any of their names? Of course not. You know why? Because they were not part of the ruling class; the royal class; the elite class. They were mere subjects. Not even human really, just work horses needed to finance the ruling class’ extravagant lifestyle.

      • The deaths of mundanes aren’t important enough to be mentioned or even counted if they lived in nations unfortunate enough to be “uplifted” by Washington.

        • Yes. I’ve pointed this out to a number of my “conservative Republican friends. We – the US populace – is outraged by 911 and the deaths of 3,400 or so civilians. Rightly so. But we’re deaf to the deaths of at least 50,000 (and probably many more) innocent Iraqi civilians. Just some ragheads in a distant country and besides they are “enemies of freedom.” The US is a strange admixture of moral posturing and outrageous immorality.

      • John Roll was a federal judge, and fairly notorious in Arizona. A major supporter of illegal immigration. Some suspect that poor Gabby caught one of the rounds that was really intended for him. Didn’t know that? Yeah, interesting how it was glossed over. Whatever happened that day was pretty convoluted.

    • “Bovard pointed out that if a poor inner city black woman had been caught doing the same thing she would have served time in prison.”

      Indeed.

      One of the worst, most galling aspects of the war on (some) drugs is the known fact that a large majority of the drug warriors themselves did some dabbling, likely during their college years, and they know that smoking some pot, as such, does not make one a violent (or otherwise) criminal any more (and in fact, much less so) than does drinking a few beers or shots of Jack Daniels. They know it. Yet they become warriors nonetheless.

      It’s demented – and depraved.

      We don’t have kids, but if we did, when the time came, I’d explain to them that some “drugs” are illegal by fiat; that all drugs should be handled responsibly if you decide to handle any of them. And that while I don’t advocate the use of any drugs – alcohol included – people can and do use them (legal and illegal) responsibly in that they don’t cause harm to others.

      • Actually, how you respond to being pulled over by the police will determine a difference response. Somehow I imagine a well-off White woman like her staying in her car while being polite whereas a Ghetto woman storming out of her car shouting racist tirades at the top of her voice.

        • Hey Dicfac.. I mean Gil! How’s it going bro. Have you seen the new site? It’s chock full of your kind in action. You oughta check it out. I’ll give you the same offer I gave clover. I have an extra camera. If you want to use it to video yourself and post the videos on the site I’ll send it to ya! Whadda say? Oh, before I forget. Here is the site: http://clovercam.com/

  5. I can’t wait to hear Clover explain this one away, this is like a Makah whalers vs. the environmentalists kind of showdown, the kind of thing that makes the mind that thinks in platitudes and slogans explode all over the monitor.

  6. I agree with the law. Based in part on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Law makers realised years ago, that it would be too easy to abuse the political process otherwise.
    Just like Congressman Rand Paul was prevented by TSA officials from representing his district recently in Congress. They prevented him from getting on a plane to D.C. because he refused an illegal search of his person after a scanner randomly picked him to be searched.
    Should she have been drinking and driving? No. Was she taking advantage of her status? Yes.
    If a critical vote was coming up, detaining her would have been worse still.
    I believe our criminal laws concerning alcohol are a sham. They are there to cost people money in our court system. No other do-gooder reason except to cost people money in a court of law. Does it work? Not that I can see.
    Alcohol is an addiction. It is just as much an addiction disease as smoking is.
    Want to stop it cold? Okay, post designated drivers in every bar in the state. The bartender determines your right to drive or not. Your car keys must be deposited when you are sober at the checkout. Make it part of the price of drinking. Treat the alcoholic as an addict not a person. Addiction takes precedence many times over judging right or wrong in the mind of an addict.
    Set up a center of taxis and tow trucks. If a person is found driving while intoxicated, hold them until a taxi arrives. Put their car or truck in storage until they are sober. Take their car keys away from them. If they are found driving another car at that time they are escorted home, then put them in jail.
    That is how I would handle an alcoholic habitual. I feel they are not capable of competant judgement. Therefore treat them as such. The main idea is to get them off the road and keep them off the road while they are drunk.

    • So Dave….do expect the rest of us to pay for your plan (along with all the other un-Constitutional “legal” B.S. we’re already paying for)? If not, where’s the money supposed to come from? I do agree with the law preventing detention of congress-critters enroute to and from legitimate sessions. But I think Eric’s point was not so much that a congress-critter shouldn’t be exempt from arrest under those circumstances, just that they shouldn’t enjoy any special privileges when leaving a party put on by industry lobbyists that the rest of us aren’t granted. It’s an “equal protection under the law” issue. The sad fact is, we have multiple “classes” in this country and that’s what (some of) the framers attempted to prevent with a Constitutional Republic. What our system of “Just-Us” has morphed into now is little better (if at all) than ancient Babylonian Law.

    • One problem with that solution is that it takes responsibility off of the drunk and puts it on a third party. When the government removes responsibility from a group of people, the result is even more irresponsible behavior from that group of people.

      The whole drunk driving issue has been blown up beyond any sense of reason and proportion. The federal agencies that have a vested interest in draconian drunk driving laws actually cook the statistics to make the problem appear much more severe than it actually is. For example: If a car with three drunks and a designated driver behind the wheel gets in accident, all fatalities will be counted as alcohol related despite the fact that the driver was sober.

      Now I do not condone drunk driving. But, big government solutions result in more government employees. Government employees, through their actions direct or indirect, are far more deadly than drunk drivers.

  7. They can treat us as criminals, and as long as we allow them to they will continue. Not until we defend ourselves, our rights, will they start to get the message that the sheep are not willing to go to the slaughter.

    Given that I told the state of Virginia to piss off when they convicted me of statutory reckless driving, so most likely my license is suspended now, it’s only a matter of time before some uneducated, tax-feeder asks me to step out of my car. When that happens I’ll tell him the same thing I told the judge in Virginia: I am an American citizen, driving my private vehicle, in my own country. I do not need the gov’t’s permission to do so. To arrest me because my papers are not in order is about as Nazi-Germanish as it gets and a clear violation of my constitutionally protected rights.

    I will remain in my car until they call the fucking fire dept. and the jaws of life to come pull me out. I may even drive away – never going faster than the speed limit mind you – but I will not willingly sujbect myself to their abuse. They will literally have to force me into the cage. And I’m not sure, since I carry my handgun in the car, if I’ll even let them do that.

    • “…it’s only a matter of time before some uneducated, tax-feeder asks me to step out of my car. ”

      And of course, he’ll “just be doing his job” – and most people would support him, not you.

      This is the same country – but not the same people – that lectured the German leaders about their war guilt; which dismissed the “I was only following orders” excuse.

      • I believe considering ‘just following orders’ not to be an excuse was just another example of hypocrisy. The WW2 generation was the first generation that was conditioned in mass by the government schools. The ones that worshiped FDR. The ones that turned the nation militaristic after the end of the war. The generation of people that stayed silent for “national security”. Many committed war crimes of various degrees by “following orders”. They brought us the idea that cops are “just doing their job” too. Even in old television programs the “just doing my job, sir” was a standard for the cop characters. On top of it, many of these people are still alive and still defining what proper political discourse is. They went forth to create and build all the institutions that hurt us now. They also put down the revolt of some baby-boomers.

        So I just see hypocrisy of that generation. Fundamentally not much of a difference. Just the conditions are in full bloom now.

        Of course there were individuals that objected to it all and the above isn’t for them, but rather the masses in general.

        • I spent some time with my grandfather today and listened to him, another member of that generation, try and explain how what we need to keep government honest is another layer of independent oversight to keep them in line and make sure they follow the letter of the law.

          He didn’t have an explanation for why the other government organizations tasked with upholding the law stopped doing that, and what would keep this new one from being captured just like all the others.

          He did tell me my generation was going to lose the country though.

    • Driving erratically is a broad definition. I was stopped for driving erratically once. A car came up behind me late at night when I left a small town. I wanted the car to pass so I pulled over and was driving in the right side of the lane and was pulled over because that is not normal to drive on the far side of the road. I told the cop I had been drinking. A beer a couple of hours earlier. I was not pulled out of the car. I was let go. I am pretty sure if the officer had any brain in his head would not have allowed her to drive if he knew she was drunk. He would have lost his job and possibly got jail time if she was in a major accident. If she was drunk he would have at least gave her a ride home.

      • A personal friend of mine was on the Smithfield, Virginia police force. He stopped a motorist for running 70 in a 35 zone. The motorist was an executive for Smithfield Foods and asked my buddy “Do you know who I am?” The officer’s response (to his credit) was basically that he didn’t care who “he” was and wrote him a reckless ticket. The following Monday the chief of police called my friend in, showed him the ticket and told him he needed to “take care of it”. When he refused, the chief took care of it himself and my friend was “encouraged” to find another job (which he did). That’s Animal Farm style equal protection under the law Clover; some of “us” are more equal than others, aren’t we?

        I had another friend who was on a narcotics task force. He and his partner attempted to pull a vehicle over on I-95 outside Richmond, Virginia for erratic driving. The driver tried to outrun them. When they finally forced him off the road he fought with them. When they finally subdued him, they found out he was drunk and armed. He was in the company of two known (prior convicted) prostitutes and in possession of marijuana and cocaine. He turned out to be a Richmond police lieutenant. Here again, my friend and his partner were “encouraged” to drop the charges and sweep it under the rug out of “professional courtesy”. They refused. Someone in the prosecutor’s office had the hearing rescheduled. When the arresting officers showed up for court, they found out the case had been heard two weeks prior. Amazingly, they were never notified of the date change. Since they didn’t appear, all charges were thrown out. My friend quit police work that same day. You probably believe it was just a prosecutorial oversight.

        My all time favorite though, was when several summer homes were burglarized in the small Virginia town I’m from. The police just couldn’t seem to figure out who was doing it (even though most of the rest of us had a pretty good idea) for weeks. Then the small group of local ne’er-do-wells that were pulling this off grew some balls. They broke into a state senator’s summer place and scored big; guns, TV’s, stereo equipment, etc. Do you know it took the cops less than three days to round those boys up and lock ‘em up. They got all of the good senator’s stuff back too. Probably just a coincidence that the cops “got a break” right after a prominent politician got hit, instead of another mere mundane.

        What’s interesting to me though is your tacit admission that you drink and drive. You also acknowledge that the law is not administered equally or fairly. Based on your previous posts you’re right much of a hypocrite, aren’t you Clover?

      • The point is Clover, the cop would have probably lost his job and been black-listed from L.E. from there on out if he HAD arrested the “Honorable” Rep. Bradford, regardless of her “condition”. If you can’t believe that then you are seriously reality challenged.

LEAVE A REPLY