10/12/2001
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html>
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---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials>
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.
Peace
Dorian
================================================================================================
On Hegelian
Dialectic:
<http://advweb.com/kw/misc/misc/kw_k-marx-e-erikson2.html>
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:
<http://cryptome.org/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------