By Dorian

A Police State By Any Other Name...

Just a few thoughts, for those of you who may be intelligent enough to harbor some cynicism about the rapid expansion of fascism in this country (all under the guise of "Homeland Security"). If any of you suspect more than coincidence and chaos as driving forces behind the ongoing threats of terrorism, war-driven pseudo-patriotism and our government's response to these threats, you may be right, yet you're too late to stop the arrival of the American police state! We are already in a police state.

The September 11th incidents were the PERFECT excuse for mandated fascism. Fear and terror drives the thesis. Rapid response and assumed mandates for increased law and order are the antithesis. And the synthesis, the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME, is a police state for America. After all, terrorism like this has no face. So all people are included in the list of suspects. Civil liberties MUST be sacrificed, as the old rap goes, in order to guarantee domestic tranquility. It is no surprise to this researcher that this pattern follows the Hegelian dialectic. The goal of the machinations of the modern pro-socialist conspirators is the gaining of a "consensus," where the new synthesis = socialism. And socialism cannot allow individual rights to interfere with the needs of a society.

The current flow of events is the embodiment of the "dialectic" of Hegel's philosophy; the "dialectic" in the "dialectical materialism" of Karl Marx. This is the fundamental philosophical/political basis of Marxist Communism. The most powerful weapons of tyranny include terrorism as Vladimir Lenin well taught. It is a well accepted premise of totalitarianism that fear drives the masses into compliance. And compliant, the modern American citizen seems to be. Today Americans seem prepared to accept any loss of civil liberties for the promise of security. And there is a new buzzword for this security, and that buzzword is "Homeland Security." How this differs from "National Security" has to do with the level at which these new laws exist. This new level of "security" may usher in the final act in the "republican" drama "patriot dreams."

As our race into fascism moves forward in leaps and bounds, congressional action is picking up the pace. It seems like the members of the Congress and the Senate are falling over each other to see which house can pass more fascist legislation. Laws being considered as we speak are destined to plunge our Republic into the mire of fascism. (see the Laws and Secret Meetings link below). The representatives' "Patriot Act of 2001," and the senators' "USA Act" threaten our last remaining vestiges freedom—freedom ensured by "rights" prescribed under Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights. Meanwhile our president asks us to remain calm, and reassures the populace that the laws that are being passed will secure us. AT WHAT COST, we should be asking! Our politicians are rushing to place America in this position, whilst chanting the mantra of temporary inconvenience. Does this not sound familiar? Hitler claimed exactly the same things under the same circumstances. Few there were then, as few there are now, brave enough to criticize the rise of a police state.

And everybody in Washington is rushing to get into the game. If the "Patriot" and "USA" bills are not frightening enough to us civil libertarians, the president's "Homeland Security Agency" can only be seen as nothing short of a workaround designed to circumvent the Posse Comitatus act. Bush, the next in a third generational dynasty of men "who would be kings," seems committed to placing us under a military government. Politicians dare not raise the alarm for fear of losing their constituent support and their jobs—come the next elections. One wonders, if we keep up the pace, whether there will be any more elections? Wasn't the Roman Empire roughly the same age that America is today, when the republic began to weaken and heads of state (e.g. Caesar!) began to steal power away from the legislature and dismantle freedoms which citizens had enjoyed for centuries?

But some lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, are questioning the wisdom of such new and pervasive laws. At least one organization has formed in an attempt to watchdog the current trends in Washington. Consisting of the unlikely pairing of such diverse organizations as the ACLU and the National Rifle Association (which seldom see eye to eye on anything) the newly formed "Defense of Freedom Coalition," plan on taking a firm stand to protect our civil liberties. In reference to the new congressional bills, Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union said, "Ten years from now, our fear is that the American public will look back to this legislation and say 'this is where we crossed the line to a surveillance society.'"

Senator Orin Hatch insisted that the current reforms are "based on the proper balance between the role of law enforcement and civil liberties." This gives me little reason for feeling all warm and fuzzy, as Mr. Hatch has led the charge in more attempts at pushing fascist agendas than almost any single Senator on the Hill. Reviewing his ongoing proposals and authorship/sponsorship of fascist laws, it is obvious that old Orin is not so naive as one might think. His "proper balance" would make the Federal government into a juggernaut with tyrannical power. The "proper role of government," under the mandates of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, is extremely restrictive. Orin's philosophy is it's antithesis.

And then there's Attorney General John Ashcroft. He tossed in his two cents worth when he told reporters that the NEW measures would be applied with the "same careful respect" for constitutionally protected individual rights that law enforcement agents demonstrate in battling illegal drugs and organized crime. Is he serious? He further stated that these laws would be implemented "without violating the rights and the freedoms of Americans ..." Anyone even remotely familiar with the now legendary "war on drugs" knows that more incursions against our civil liberties have occurred under the auspices of this arbitrary "war" than have ever occurred in any other period of American history. Redefining property under new seizure laws, expanded wiretapping and Internet spying, and "Know you customer" all have come as a result of this nasty and utterly hypocritical "war." So Mr. Ashcroft, are we supposed to sigh a breath of relief now? What do you mean...exactly...when you use the expression "without violating the rights and freedoms of Americans?" I suppose he might be referring to the fact that, once you place serious restrictions on an individual person's rights, you run little risk of "violating" what's left of them.

First Amendment Rights Threatened: "Limits To Freedom?"
As our Federal government shovels new laws onto the pyre, fear's flames roar through the media. A new case of Anthrax has been discovered, again at a media outlet. Suddenly a new response will be needed. Although the media is focused on the need for added security it is the media itself which will now be subjected to tighter security.

President Bush has made several appearances in front of the cameras lately to try and quell the fears of Americans over the threats of renewed terrorist activity, all the time pushing his new war and antiterrorism "Homeland Security" agenda. Yet, Americans should listen between the lines, for Bush's agenda may not be so benign as some would like to think. When it comes to our rights, none has been more sacred to Americans than their right of Free Speech as guaranteed by the First amendment. Here are some recent quotes from Bush—and his administration's press secretary, Ari Fleischer—that might demonstrate what he means when he speaks of rights?

"There ought to be limits to  freedom." __Bush, May 21 1999 [Listen for yourself: <http://gwbush.com/gwtv/limits_to_freedom.rm>]

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." __Bush, July 30, 2001.

"Americans need to watch what they say, what they do, and this is not the time for remarks like [Maher's]; there never is." __Ari Fleischer, Sept 14 2001

"Until you receive further notice from me only eight leading members of Congress should be briefed." __Bush, to his cabinet, military and intelligence agencies, Oct. 5 2001

"Our nation is now at war, and the rules have  changed." __Ari Fleischer, Oct 8 2001

In our 225 years as a republic, America has remained free. In that time we've never allowed war to become a vehicle for diminishing our freedom of speech. WE have lost some ground, but by and large this remains one of the few freedoms we have left. Political correctness has taken a toll, and special interest group's agendas have been used to enact "hate laws" that have begun to erode the edges of this political bastion, but the fact that you are receiving this even now is proof that this First Amendment right has not yet been usurped. So what did Ari Fleisher mean? Surely if the Civil War and two World Wars, and 50 years of Cold Wars and anti-sovereign wars didn't "change the rules," than a war against a few hundred (or a few dozen?) terrorists shouldn't either.

The anthrax scare gripping the country is bound to affect our country's ability to maintain free media. The recent target of an apparent Anthrax terrorist attacks, media outlets and reporters are under fire from unseen enemies that have distributed Anthrax spores to various offices in the United States. Although we are lead to believe that, on the one hand that this is the work of the SAME terrorists that executed the WTC/Pentagon attacks, there has been some murmuring that "domestic terrorists" may be responsible. Such was the spin Michael Reagan put on a conversation with at least one caller on his Wednesday night show. The caller was referring to the first anthrax victim story from the day before, and commented on the targeting of media. Reagan spun the conversation into a question of whether domestic terrorists might be responsible. I was stunned to hear someone spin the news this way. Yet, I WOULD anticipate just such a spin from government dupe or pro NWO sympathizer. How could this conspicuously fascist Bush administration resist the chance to cast more blame, open the noose to hold a few more necks, and thereby expand the nation's fears to encompass ALL America as terrorist "suspects." Nothing like moving the agenda forward with yet another threat. Now we're seeing terrorists behind EVERY BUSH. Or could it be BUSH behind every terrorist?

Second Amendment Restrictions: No Sidearms Allowed Inside, or Outside, or By Your Side
I watched my television set in amazement on September 11th. The whole world was stunned to see terrorist-flown aircraft deliberately targeting the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. That actually did not stun me. I expected and predicted that in some way, by some act or acts, we would be drawn inexorably into a middle-East conflict. What stunned me was that the FAA shut down every flight in and out of the US, as well as domestic flights and even restricted small aircraft. I had been warned in a vision in 1974 that this would happen, but never fully understood the full implications of the dream.

I am still shocked to see armed federal troops in the airports. Of course they were not armed at first. I can remember the governor of Oregon addressed this the night the National Guard were being positioned for security at PDX. He said that there were no plans to arm them at that time. Well, three days later they were armed and remain that way. Wednesday the Federal government placed themselves in charge of all airport security nationwide. As we see armed military on our streets I can still recall my nay-saying friends who just knew this could never happen. These are the same nay-sayers who cannot see the writing on the wall as it concerns the approach of mandatory gun registration and eventual confiscation.

As airports clamp down on the packing of even something as innocuous as a pair of fingernail clippers, the right to own and bear arms slides down yet another notch. The Second Amendment to our Constitution states: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It seems to me that to "bear" arms means to have and keep them on your person. This is the impetus behind State laws, like those of Arizona, permitting its citizens to carry weapons.

Now, as most people know, the new airport security laws mandate no knives in carryon luggage and no gift store sales of knives at airport concession stands. Letter openers, box-cutters, and even fingernail clippers (with nail files) have been confiscated at airport security checkpoints. As we watch the march into totalitarianism we see an ever widening circle of laws that roll forth and roll right over the Constitution. Those who would pervert our founder's vision for a republican democracy always go about this deception using the best excuses.

Over the last couple of years in our nation there have been a spate of state laws that infringe on Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which states "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law." A similar provision that applies to Congress is found in Section 9 of the same article. Yet, this clear constitutional law notwithstanding, such laws have been passed and enforced, making criminals out of persons who, until the laws were passed, had committed no crime.

In California, redefining the specs for what was and was not an "assault" weapon was used as an excuse to require owners of an SKS Sportster rifle to register the guns with the state. The state promised that this registration would never lead to a ban or a confiscation of them. In good faith owners of these weapons -- who were and always had been law-abiding people -- complied. Within a short time the California legislators rethought their positions. The result: another law making the SKS Sportster illegal, and subject to confiscation/destruction within a specified period of time.

An inexpensive rifle, the SKS Sportster confiscation order was couched as a "buy back" program. State law enforcement officials took a federal payoff of about $1.5 million to "buy back" as many of the rifles as they could, paying participants as much as $230 for their rifles. A grace period was also extended in which the owners who had not yet come forth to turn in their rifles would be free from any government prosecution under the new ex post facto legislation. On 10/31/99 all noncompliant owners were guilty of a felony if they remained in possession of one of the banned weapons.

Of the amnesty and buyback period, Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office, said, "The legislature said, OK, we'll give them a one-year grace period to take advantage of the buyback and avoid becoming criminals." Never mind that the rifles these owners have not used in crimes, were legal when they were purchased, and that more guns in a society equals less violent crime, that "the right to keep and  bear arms ... shall not be infringed," per the language of the Second Amendment. This illustrates the arrogance and presumptive disregard for the proper rule of law in this country, especially when it comes to the Constitutional Amendments.
According to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.'' A similar provision that applies to Congress is found in Section 9 of the same article. At first glance these constitutional prohibitions seem simple enough--retroactive laws violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple. With one ruling in 1798, the Supreme Court succeeded in muddling the issue of ex post facto laws by holding that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws. And interesting muddling indeed, since a gun confiscation starts off as civil law, that makes a criminal out of  a person for non compliance. The next time they face the legal system as a criminal, and are subject to a criminal offense.

This just in---
This week (01/12/01), the "National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002" still awaits final consideration. Last week, Section 1062 of the bill passed by the Senate (S. 1438) provides the Secretary of  Defense with the authority to require "demilitarization" of any "significant military equipment" that has ever been owned by the DoD. This could lead to the required destruction of any firearm, firearm barrel, ammunition, or gun powder that was once owned by the military but is now owned by law-abiding citizens. The House's version of this bill did not contain the same provision, so a House-Senate Joint Conference Committee will soon be established to iron out this and other differences between the two chambers' versions of this legislation.
<<This "demilitarization" would include all firearms (such as the venerable M1, M1 Carbine, and Model 1911, as well as all Civilian Marksmanship Program rifles, even "sporterized" surplus bolt-action Springfields!), firearm barrels, ammunition, and gun powder. "Demilitarization" is the term for rendering such items permanently inoperable, and Sec. 1062 allows for this action to be carried out either by the owner or a third party, with the owner paying the cost, or by the DoD. However, if the DoD determines it should perform the demilitarization, it can also determine that the cost of returning the demilled item is prohibitive, then simply keep the item, and reimburse the owner only for the fair market scrap value of the item.

Furthermore, this new authority would require private citizens to determine for themselves if an item they own is subject to demilitarization, and face criminal penalties for noncompliance. The DoD would be under no obligation to notify law-abiding citizens that items they have lawfully owned for years, and perhaps that their families have owned for generations, are suddenly subject to forced demilitarization. This becomes extremely significant when one considers that U.S. military surplus has been regularly—and legally—bought, sold, and traded for centuries. Countless Americans own items that could be subject to Sec. 1062. It is likely millions of law-abiding Americans would be affected, and could unknowingly become criminals overnight without having done anything or having ever been informed.>>

"Gun Control is a Prelude to Totalitarian rule..." __Theodore Haas

Nazi Weapons Law
The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. The Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany–they inherited gun control, and then perfected it. The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them. In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people. The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Fourth Amendment Toast: Eat Drink and Be Merry, For Tomorrow We May Fly
The new "Patriot" and "USA" laws will be "harmonized" next week. What does this mean for Americans? I think this is obvious to anyone who has traveled recently on an aircraft in the U.S.. In the airport terminals cars that sit for any period of time are immediately impounded. Passenger's luggage and carryon baggage is subject to indiscriminate searches. The Fourth amendment is pretty much null and void in the airports. Greyhound and Amtrak are already beginning spot checks on passenger's luggage as well. Greyhound personnel were complaining because they didn't have the staff to sufficiently search all passengers. You can bet after the October 3rd bus hijacking this will change pronto.

Now that packages are coming under scrutiny one can only wonder how far Americans will allow the government to go before all their rights pertaining to the protection from unlawful search and seizure will have become obsolete. On national television I saw an article critical of the low levels of security regarding x-ray scanning of passenger luggage. Meanwhile Canada announced tightened security and touted their new fingerprint biometric systems and bomb detection devices.

It should be remembered that legislation pertaining to the rights of passengers on "public" conveyances is already defined by federal law. As I recall, starting about 15 years ago, the Supreme Court redefined the right to drive as a "privilege."  I believe this was based on the ratio of federal funds to state funds allocated to road improvement. Anyway, they defined driving as a privilege. About the same time, based on the average family unit of 4.5 persons, it was decided that any assembly of 5 or more people was a "public assembly;" this was without regard to whether the place of assembly was public or private. These two laws came together in a Supreme Court ruling that found that law enforcement officials could demand of any passenger in a "public" conveyance (any vehicle with 5 or more people in it) that they submit to a search, with or without probable cause. That passenger had the right to refuse, because his 4th amendment rights were still intact–however, he could be forced from the vehicle for lack of compliance.

Other 4th amendment infringements include the Illinois practice of profiling vehicles based on the presence of bumper stickers of particular rock bands. This profiling was based on studies that showed that drivers in these vehicles were statistically more likely to be in possession of controlled substances. Not only was this practice upheld when challenged, but has been greatly expanded. Today, we hear of racial profiling being used to identify potential terrorists in our midst. One can only imagine where this will lead in the near future, as Americans appear willing to relinquish their rights as the fear of terrorism increases.

Fifth Amendment Infringed: Circumvention or Circuitous Circus?
With fears of a second wave of terrorist attacks on America rising, the recent anthrax terrorist attacks have shocked our nation with an unwelcome "trick or treat" Halloween nightmare. In the wake of these attacks we can expect an immediate response from the Bush administration, and likely even more of our rights will now be trampled upon. As the new congressional "Patriot" and "USA" laws have encroached on our rights to privacy, why stop there? Let's be consistently invasive. If our e-mail and phone messages are subject to random interception, why not our mail too?

The US Mail and other commercial carriers of packages, will now almost certainly come under increased federal scrutiny. With yet another mandate for added security comes even more restrictions. Soon all packages will be subject to searches, x-ray scanning, and seizure. How much responsibility do you think the government will assume in returning the opened "suspicious" package to it's owner?

The responsibility for damages associated with such contaminated packages could devolve into a field day for lawyers. More economic woes are in our future as businesses suffers from the inevitable losses incurred by delays in time-sensitive deliveries. As such, what private carrier would refuse to implement whatever invasive policies would free them from liability and move packages through the security bottleneck? Yet another level of circumvention of the 5th Amendment. And yet another problem looms on this country's fascist horizon. Since anyone can address a package with someone else's return address, and drop it into the mail, what a mess is likely to ensue. Could a person simply send a package with someone else's name on it, resulting in that person's property being seized by the "Homeland Security" Gestapo? Where does this nightmare end? Does this mean an end to mailboxes and private mail?

This following report points to the ominous wording of the latest drafts of the "Patriot" act. From Asia - News World Sunday, in an article dated October 7, entitled "America under surveillance," we read: "...the proposed laws also calls for tougher punishment in terrorism cases, notably by making it a criminal offense to shelter a suspected terrorist..." Well, you've got to love the wording of this. So the new laws would make it "...a criminal offense to shelter a SUSPECTED terrorist!" When you begin to suspect anyone, with nothing more than an anonymous phone call, and with the property confiscation laws now in place thanks to the "war on drugs," what does this mean for an American citizen's Fifth Amendment Rights?

As anybody can see, the rights of Americans are being circumvented by circuitous means. And as Congress passes it's latest antiterrorist "act," we can expect the latest media hysteria to become a three ring circus that will prompt further administration intervention and interdiction. Anybody may become a secondary target of a government operation to round up anyone "suspected" of a terrorist act. One is driven to wonder at this twist on the "innocent until proven guilty."  This idea is implied by the 5th amendment, which refers to the "due process of law" whereby there is a presumption of innocence on behalf of a defendant, and the burden of proof for his guilt is the responsibility of the court.

Indeed, the original meaning of the construction "innocent until proven guilty" is that the burden of proof in criminal cases rests with the government, as the following citation from Black's Law Dictionary illustrates: Presumption of innocence. A hallowed principle of criminal law to the effect that the government has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. It arises at the first stage of the criminal process but it is not a true presumption because the defendant is not required to come forward with proof of his innocence once evidence of guilt is introduced to avoid a directed verdict of guilty. Presumption of innocence succinctly conveys the principle that no person may be convicted of a crime unless the government carries the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but it does not mean that no significance at all may be attached to the indictment. U.S. v. Friday, D.C.Mich., 404 F.Supp. 1343, 1346.

From an article by Rep. Hyde; "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" published on July 11, 1995, he addressed the problem of increasingly unconstitutional laws. We read:

<< Now's the time to change the law that allows police to confiscate your property without recourse. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." (Excerpt, Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

Federal and state officials now have the power to seize your business, home, bank account, records and personal property--all without indictment, hearing or trial. Everything you have can be taken away at the whim of one or two federal or state officials. Regardless of sex, age, race or economic situation, we are all potential victims. Over the course of several years, Florida police routinely confiscated cash (an estimated $8 million total) from motorists who fit profiles of drug couriers. Criminal charges rarely were filed in these cases, and in only three did individuals have funds returned. Increased government and police powers, rising criminal activity and violence, popular anxiety about drug use--all have become justifications for curtailing the application of the Bill of
Rights and the individual security it once guaranteed.

—— Confiscation but no crime: According to one estimate, in more than 80% of asset-forfeiture cases the property owner is not charged with a crime, yet government officials usually keep seized property.

—— A flimsy standard of proof: To justify its seizure, the government need only present evidence of what its agents see as "probable cause." This is the same minimal standard required to obtain a search warrant, which allows police only to seek evidence of a crime, not to permanently seize property. Even worse, under current law the burden of proof then switches to the property owner, who must establish by "a preponderance of the evidence" that his or her property has not been used in a criminal act.

—— Guilt by ownership: The basic American presumption--innocent until proven guilty--has been reversed. Property owners who lease apartments, cars or boats risk losing their property because of renters' conduct over which the owner has no control--and sometimes, by law, can have no control.

—— Perverted procedures: To contest government forfeiture, owners are allowed only days in which to file a claim and post a 10% cash bond based on the value of the property. Even if the owner gets his property back, the government is not liable for damage.

—— Questionable official conduct: Perhaps worst of all, some police and prosecutorial authorities are engaging in questionable conduct themselves. In 1992, former New York City police commissioner Patrick Murphy admitted that "the large monetary value of forfeitures ... has created a great temptation for state and local police departments to target assets rather than criminal activity."

Criminal-asset forfeiture--following a criminal conviction--is an appropriate punishment of the guilty who have been accorded due process. Civil forfeiture even has a proper place in the prosecution of the war on drugs, but not as it's now being widely abused.  >>

This modern terrorism is a highly efficient warfare method. A little energy goes a long way, and these acts are meant to terrorize and disrupt the American economy and it is all done at a minimum cost. These anthrax scares are going to also inflict yet another blow against our failing economy. The packages that delivered the bacteria were cheap to manufacture and mail, and the intimidation level maximized. And the terrorists' goals are met even as the goals of others are also met. One cannot help but admire how many agendas are being simultaneously served by a single event, or series of them. But we are meant to see ONLY the things that the political magicians want us to see. We must look only at ONE menace, one on the outside. But our enemies within are going to do us far more damage.

Meanwhile the States of this Republic should be up in arms, but they remain silent. Local police and emergency response agencies are being placed under the controls of a federal juggernaut, and the authority of States protected by the separation of powers constitutionally, are being superseded by executive orders and Federal mandates. Federal jurisdiction under the new "Homeland Security" laws is being used to merge state and federal agencies into one super agency all under Federal control. This is the underlying theme of the "Homeland Security" premise. It seems NO ONE is empowered to resist this downward spiral, certainly not the average American citizen. So as each new wave of tyranny sweeps over our rights and our privacy, we simply come burbling back to the surface, suck in another lung full of air and wait for the next wave. Well, I am afraid that what we are seeing now is simply setting the stage for a tsunami on our political horizon, for our rights are swept way with the receding tide, and we will eventually find ourselves standing on the shifting sands of political and social uncertainty. We are being coerced into false patriotism and are considered anti-American if we doubt our leadership's motives or our country's innocence in all that is happening to us.

The New World Order: Here, Now
As a conspiracy nut, I am required to use my brain. I must think independently, it is part of the job. And this thinking man cannot help but see the pieces of the puzzle of NWO world control coming together, and rapidly.

In order to control the world a one-world government must be both empowered to dictate all global law and to define morality. They need to be able to enforce compliance to their laws, which means that they also need to be allowed to punish violators. They require a global equivalent to our current judicial and governmental system and the funds to run it. Those who see this coming are hard at work seeing to it that America is primed for this inevitability. Not only has our nation violated the sovereignty of a series of nations over the last 50 years, but now even our own airspace is being patrolled by NATO AWACS ships. What goes 'round comes around seems to be the name of this tune. So, for the first time in American history, foreign powers are operating overtly, in our land, "keeping the peace." There's your mandate for a world police force come home to America's front door. Yet, few see this connection.

We are now engaged in bringing these "Terrorists" to justice, but WHO's justice system will oversee such rulings? GUESS? It will need to be the U.N. "World Court." This will set the stage for all future wars, war crime adjudication and punishment. And what of monetary losses? Who is to pay for that? Who is going to be empowered to control the funding of war, and determine who gets shut down and what groups can function in a political arena? Try a World Banking system.

Already the leadership of the US and England are seizing/freezing the assets of groups identified as "terrorist" organizations and the governments ACCUSED of supporting them. Both GW Bush and Tony Blair have proposed the implementation of a new variant on the insidious KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER scam whereby the country's banks are forced to cooperate with the authorities by allowing the feds access to their client's bank accounts/records. The American people screamed foul the last time they tried to push this agenda on us. Yet, once again, no one seems too concerned now. Before they cried, "We are not all drug pushers!" Suddenly no one is complaining. Instead we hear, "who knows, any one of us MIGHT be a terrorist...you just can't be too sure nowadays, can you?"

America is the last "super power" left in the world with enough money, guns, freedom and military might to deter the burgeoning socialist takeover bid. If removed from the equation how long would the aggressive Chinese communists or Russians stay their collective hands? The ruse that Russian communism is dead is a fairy tale. Russia is a superpower playing possum, as I am afraid we'll all soon find out. If there really are ongoing Chinese plans for an invasion of the US mainland, then the American people need to be contained, their weapons confiscated, and their ability to communicate news across the nation restricted. This means that travel must also be restricted and the movements of the populace strictly monitored. There must be no panic—a military presence would be required, not only to suppress resistance, but appearing friendly, to foster a feeling of safety among the citizenry.

There is little doubt in this investigator's mind that this terrorism is at least in part, directly financed by Chinese and Russian monies. As the insidious "Patriot Act" clears Congress, and the Senate Bill is merged into it, we can expect that every American is now being placed under surveillance. Although the congressional bill lacks the verbiage, the Senate version clearly is intended to hand joint "terrorist" surveillance responsibilities to the Chinese and Russians by allowing them access to the NSA's Carnivore and Echelon technologies. There is little doubt that all the merged data on Americans, along with regular surveillance of all communications through wiretaps, e-mail searches, bank account information and biometrics would prove an invaluable asset to any foreign power intent on invasion. Hitler suppressed, and almost eliminated, the European resistance to his Third Reich, with little more than information on 3"x5" cards organized in shoe boxes. Now, with the help of the NSA's powerful relational data search capabilities, a clear picture can be had of WHO might pose a substantial risk to any invading army.

Since October 10th, the Federal government now has the responsibility for airport security. Armed National Guardsmen stand guard, no one but travelers are allowed past security checkpoints in airports, and the rapid deployment of biometric facial scanners at both airports, and soon at train stations and bus terminals, will only add to the NSA/CIA/FBI ability to track and monitor US citizens, where ever they travel. Most cities already are ringed with surveillance cameras masquerading as traffic cams, and augmented by cameras at busy intersections. Cameras overlook downtown areas such as Bellevue Washington, Palm Beach and many other major cities. Adding to that the network of private camera systems in everything from teller windows, supermarkets and quick food stores, to city buses, subways and taxicabs, and you've got the makings of a total surveillance society.

With increased surveillance at points of entry/exit, and the potential to lock down our borders at a moment's notice, the federal government controls American access to and exit from within our borders as never before. Travelers on intercontinental and continental transportation systems can now expect to be under constant scrutiny. Even ocean entry points will come under tight security as we enter this "virtual" police state. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are in a police state. Freedom is all in the eye of the beholder, and the definition of what we hold as rights, vs. what we perceive as privileges granted to us by our governmental overseers, is the determining factor in assessing whether we are "free" or not. It has been shown time and time again, if a people feel threatened enough, most will be willing to sacrifice their freedom for the illusion of fiscal and civil security. The other thing history teaches us is that once we give up our freedoms, it ALWAYS takes a war to gain them back again...ALWAYS!

The "Homeland Security Agency," with three departments, one geared to political surveillance, was intended as a posse Comitatus workaround—under Clinton—and is now finally becoming a reality under the new Bush monarchy. We now have a king, and this King has a federal army. The gears are set in motion for the elimination of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments.

I suspect that the Federal government will have to bring terrorism back home again soon. I can imagine that, if the fears of terrorism from outside our borders abates, a new threat from within might be promulgated. Then the terrorist laws could be turned more easily on the American populace. Yet, my thinking is that this will not happen before the Chinese invasion that looms on our horizon. However, as the American economy fails and chaos breaks out across our nation, the systems to handle internal strife will be well established.

Our once great nation will never be the same again, I fear. But, as I leave you, let me make this observation. Mankind's spirit cannot be destroyed. Despite the coming conflicts and destruction there will be those who will rise to take command, to fight for a reversal of our condition and a return to Constitutional Republic. I look forward to those days and hope and pray for providence to guide us to that bright day before we lose ALL we once had. America was once and can be again a great nation, if its people are noble, true, and if they turn their hearts back to their God, for we can only unite as one people, if we do so through our mutual faith and dedication to eternal principles, and with a shared vision of eternal certainty.

Last Word: A Furtune Cookie
In the meantime all America should keep a close eye on the Chinese. There is little doubt of their agneda. Positioning themselves in all the deep harbors in America, she has us surrounded, literally. As we enter a new age of uncertainty the day will come when Americans are so fearful that they will gladly sacrifice even more of their rights in the form of sovereignty. Now that foreign military is patrolling our skies, we can see the end of American sovereignty. This inevitability was obvious to anyone who's kept their eye America's slide away from the sovereigny premises of our Constutional government. As 5,000 Chinese prepare to do their thing in the Los Angeles Harbor area, the prophetic words of Henry (CFR) Kissinger come to mind.

"Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered into Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond...WHETHER REAL OR PROMULGATED, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willfully relinquished...guarantees of their well-being guaranteed by their World Government...".

[Quoted from: Henry Kissinger, statement to the Bilderberger organization, Evian, France 5-21-92, from a tape recording by Swiss delegates. For those who are not aware, the Bilderbergers are and have been covered extensively by the (formerly) "Spotlight" newspaper out of Washington, DC.]

We'll see, Mr. Kissinger. Perhaps Americans could awaken from their stupor and unite against the coming tyranny. Stranger things have happened.


On Hegelian Dialectic:

     Hegel had viewed all experience and all reality as a system of motion. The motion progressed by a definite pattern--the
dialectic. To Hegel, all reality was in the realm of ideas, and the sensory, perceived realm was illusory. Ideas moved in
the following manner--first there would be a basic thesis, and then a complete negation of that thesis. The war between the
thesis and its negation, or the antithesis, would produce a synthesis, evolving from elements of both the old contestants, but still, different from them and totally replacing them. The  new synthesis would in turn become a thesis, to be faced with its own antithesis, and so on.

     Those who accepted his logic could easily draw revolutionary implications. The dialectic moved by itself, and not by active, moving agents. Therefore history was in inevitable process,  and the actors in its drama were not capable of ruining the  plans of a higher and infallible intelligence. Before the new could come in, the old must not only be changed, but subject to some form of attack. The attack would express a new and higher ideal, and the results would combine the best of the old with the best of the new.
For information on the secret meetings and new "anti terrorism" bills pending, as well as other important breaking news from Washington, check out this wonderful "hacker" site:


The Constitutional Amendments

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined
in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.