Monday, April 27, 2009


Is it Time for Psychological Evaluation of Candidates Seeking Office?
by James Jaeger

Torture! Cops beating a 15-year old girl! What has this nation become under the legacy of George W. Bush and the so-called Patriot Act?

Before you read this article, and so you can get a better understanding of what motivated its publication, please watch the below video of a "law" enforcement officer enforcing "justice" on a 15-year old girl by brutally beating her in a Seattle, Washington jail cell.(1)

The video is at

Is this the United States you have come to know and love? Is the U.S. becoming a fascist state, alien to even the most recent of immigrants? Has Osama bin Laden turned out to be a benefit to a government predisposed to increasingly ignore tenets of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution? Are federal, state and local governments using the threat of terrorism to "justify" all manner of conflict and war, invasions of privacy, unjust enrichment, special interest legislation and local brutality? There is increasing evidence that the answer to these questions is "yes."

Just as unworthy incumbents at the federal level must be voted out of office when their actions show imprudence or a failure to uphold their oath of office to the Constitution, incumbents at the state level must also be purged from the system when they become entrenched or abusive. But citizens need to wake up to thugs that have infiltrated the local levels as well, where they are at risk from overly-zealous police officers, entrenched district judges, DAs and congress people. These mini-tyrants do not serve the public interest but are often in office for status reasons or to dramatize domination over people they have grown up with.

Unfortunately, like serial killers that "seemed so normal" until apprehended, one can never be sure which congressmen, judges, district attorneys or police officers are going to erupt in anti-social behavior like that displayed in the above video. Almost more alarming, studies have shown that when anger or hatred cannot be openly displayed, it often becomes covert and is inflicted in other ways. Fortunately, the vast number of people in the population, especially those practicing Judeo-Christian and Scientology values, either dissipate such anger and hatred or direct it toward constructive endeavors. However this is not true of all individuals, whether private citizens or government officials, involved with religion or not.

The difference between a private citizen and a public official is significant. A public official, unlike a citizen, is entrusted with vast amounts of collective power. A policeman is permitted to carry guns, tasers, bats and other weapons which s/he is authorized to use on the citizen if the "judgment" of such officer warrants such. At higher levels, a judge or district attorney is permitted to levy fines, imprisonment and punishments on citizens based on their "judgment" of the situation. State legislatures, often filled with people who failed to attain federal positions or successful law practices, are many times forgotten or invisible to the public.(2) At the highest levels, federal congressmen and the president, are permitted to take a nation to war where the mass-killing of thousands or millions of people rests with their "judgment" -- and "sanity." Congressmen are permitted to make laws that, in their "judgment," are constitutional and beneficial for the "general welfare" of the nation or state. In all of these cases judgment is paramount, but before judgment can be rational, the individuals passing judgment should be "sane" enough to be able to PASS judgment. Unfortunately, the same "sanity" that permits individuals to defeat their political opponents is an ability that can be used to abuse power, hence abuse the public. Such individuals are therefore quite good at hiding their cunning abilities (or even their mental state) for they know they will be voted out or removed from office if their actions and/or withheld negative acts are anything but subtle. Such individuals thus seek positions of power (local, state and federal) where they can unobtrusively pass and enforce "laws" that serve their psychological "needs" -- rather than serving the public welfare. And if recent studies are any indicator, they are fearless in their predatory pursuit of these "needs."

Like the super rich, those that seek and serve in government are not like you and I. There is something different about a person that seeks power, an essence that sets them apart for good or for evil. Most citizens innately understand this, and fortunately most public officials are decent men and women trying to serve and improve society. But recent studies by criminologists into the activities and brain scans of serial killers have provided some alarming data. In almost all cases, serial killers and pathologically dangerous people exhibit abnormalities in the "limbic brain." This part of the brain is associated with emotion and motivation, but related to causality and the ability to feel remorse. Studies published in CRIME TIMES, report that psychopaths are less likely to experience the emotion of fear. "The psychopath's heart rate and skin temperature are low, and their 'startle reaction' was substantially less than the average person. The autonomic nervous system of intensely violent people is intensely sluggish. ... They need a higher level of thrill or stimulation in order to have an intense experience," says forensic psychologist Shawn Johnston.(3)

This means serial killers have an inhibited sense of their effects on society and they feel no remorse while committing horrendous acts or afterwards.

As if these new findings are not horrifying enough -- the idea that almost all of serial killers studied manifest certain brain anomalies -- there is a deeper dimension that is even more troubling. That dimension is the evidence discussed in Macleans' Magazine that suggests "experts estimate that about one per cent of the GENERAL population (emphasis added) consists of psychopaths, while roughly one-fifth of the inmates in the country's prisons falls into the category." The 61-year old world authority from the University of British Columbia, psychologist Robert Hare, has conducted studies that shed new light on pathological individuals and he reports in Maclean's: "We as a society are paying an enormously high cost because of this damaging disorder. We need to find out what makes these people tick in order to tackle the problem at its roots." Maclean's goes on to state: "According to Hare, 'many psychopaths find wealth and success as highly manipulative corporate careerists, as thugs on professional sports teams or as unscrupulous politicians.'(4)

In layman's terms, this means that 1% of the general population, including "politicians," is physiologically pre-disposed to psychopathic tendencies.

But before you get too alarmed, Dr. Hare also says that the disorder does not necessarily lead to violent criminal behavior. Criminologists underscore additional factors and conditions must be met before an individual pre-disposed to kill will carry out his or her deeds. Some of these factors and conditions are: environment, parental influence, temporal lobe damage, imprisonment, military training, societal and/or parental abuse, nutrition, medication, drug addiction, education, general intelligence and access to leverage (money, position, physique, connections). All of the above factors enter into the equation, some factors negating each other and others reinforcing the marginal propensity for the psychopathic personality to do damage, whether in private or public.


Since a government official is generally in a position to do far more damage to a citizen than a citizen is able to do to a government official, shouldn't We the People require our public officials to prove they are not "governing under the influence" of any physiological or psychological malady before entrusting them with state power? As the above video shows, the police officer in question seems to have lost control over a 15-year old's flippant actions. Judging from the severe and unnecessary aggression of the officer, it is evident such violence is a result of some sort of mental aberration on the part of the local official. Perhaps this officer is one of the 1% discussed above and has a serious physiological condition. Perhaps he's one of the 1% of society that's psychopathic. On the other hand, maybe this officer just had a bad day. Maybe he has a 15-year old daughter who is flippant or abusive to him and he's built up a considerable amount of emotional "charge," and just releasing it on the 15-year old he has under his "protective" custody in order to "get even."

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 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 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

(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. and

(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 and the article discussing same at

(3) Source: CRIME TIMES magazine at Also see for more information from a different source.

(4) Source: 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 District Judge (DJ).

25 April 2009

Please forward this to your mailing list if you agree with even 51% of this article. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. Thus it's up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated and continued.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited.

Any responses to this article, email or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to stimulate a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond. We will make every effort to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you should proffer.

Don't forget to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute. Also, if you support a constitutional republic engaged in free-market capitalism, you might be interested in watching the progress of our current film production, ORIGINAL INTENT, at

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at

No comments: