The Police State

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="98%" align=center>
<T>
<TR>
<TD =title colSpan=2>More Disturbing Legislation Emanating From Congress </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD =textsmall>Published on01-29-2009</TD></TR></T></TABLE>
Source: American Chronicle - Bill Lindner


It has become increasingly clear over the past several years  it's just become more blatantly obvious since the appointment of the Bush administration to the White House  that the U.S. Congress that is supposed to protect and speak for the people they're elected to represent has been doing quite the opposite, once again introducing potentially unconstitutional legislation that tramples rights and liberties.


After the attacks of 9/11  that could and should have been prevented by the Bush administration, but weren't  the American public was repeatedly served with illegal, unconstitutional 'legislation' by a corrupt, complicit Congress designed to destroy Democracy, rights and freedoms. The Bush administration is finally gone, although it will take years to rid the government of the leftover trash, the illegal, unconstitutional legislation isn't. It's not surprising when you consider the fact that many in Congress were bought off by large corporations and lobbyists years ago.


Almost a year ago, The San Francisco Chronicle had a report entitled "Rule by fear or rule by law?" that detailed how, since 9/11, seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."


One has to wonder what kind of 'new programs' require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house millions of people.


Since 1999, the U.S. government has employed a series of single-bid contracts with Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations inside the U.S. The same KBR who is responsible for electrocuting U.S. troops in Iraq as well as giving them contaminated supplies that made several of them sick. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, allegedly to transport detainees.


Diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott says the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan entitled ENDGAME that sets as its goal the removal of all removable aliens and potential terrorists.


Section 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that never became law, says "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law, meaning that for the first time in over a century, the president could authorize the use of the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition deemed necessary by the President in a situation where its determined that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.


Slow and Methodical Destruction Of Democracy, Rights and Freedoms


The Military Commissions Act of 2006, ramrodded through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes," allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. It calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.


In 2007, the Bush administration quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what is vaguely called a "catastrophic emergency." According to the directive, if the president determined that such a state of emergency occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government," including everything from canceling elections to launching a nuclear attack.


Senator Jane Harman (D-CA) authored another draconian piece of legislation  that fortunately never became law  known as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a 404-6 margin, that would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of alleged violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.


There is also the egregious USA PATRIOT ACT whose intent is "to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."


You'll notice that all the draconian 'terrorism' legislation is intentionally loosely defined, leaving plenty of room for the words to be twisted around to suit a particular need. All the 'legislation' mentioned above has resulted in nothing more than destroying Democracy, rights and freedoms while slowly and methodically shifting the U.S. towards becoming a police state.


Congress Wants To Authorize &amp; Legalize FEMA Camp Facilities


Apparently the 'legislation' mentioned above hasn't already done enough damage and destruction to America and all who live here.


Lee Rogers from Rogue Government reported on new legislation designed to authorize and legalize FEMA camp facilities. A new bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives called the National Emergency Centers Act or H.R. 645, that if passed into law, will direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers otherwise known as FEMA camp facilities on military installations.


The proposed legislation is incredibly disturbing since there is already an apparatus in place to setup nationwide martial law. Even though there are already FEMA detention centers in place, Congress now wants to legalize the construction of FEMA camps on military installations using the excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency.


Section 2 of the legislation determines that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations to provide temporary housing, medical and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster, to provide centralized locations for training and ensuring coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders, to provide centralized locations to improve coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations and to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.


More Dangerous, Loosely Worded 'Legislation'


Notice there is plenty of leeway and no definition of appropriate needs, other than 'as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.' That could for all intents and purposes, mean anything. Note that the legislation says the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations, which implies that they can setup as many FEMA camps as they want as long as there are 6 of them.


Taxpayers will only have to pay $180,000,000 per year for the facilities that could end up treating them as criminals or worse. It appears from the language of the bill that it's meant to legalize what they've already been doing and the rationale behind the legislation is most likely to serve as a mechanism of control if the authorities need facilities to hold large amounts of dissenting people.


After everything Congress has put the people through these past eight years, it's unlikely that the bill is meant to help people. As noted by Rogers from Rogue Government, one only needs to take a look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina to see how obvious it is that the government doesn't care about the people, or for that matter, what they think. These proposed facilities and the proposed legislation will most likely not be utilized for the people's interest.


These so-called 'national emergency' centers would be used in a national emergency only if the national emergency requires a large number of people to be rounded up and detained. If that isn't the case, why have national emergency facilities built in military installations?


What does Congress know that they aren't telling us? Haven't they already inflicted enough damage with their egregious, unconstitutional 'legislation?' As noted by The San Francisco Chronicle, what could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?


It's time for the ruling by fear to stop and the ruling by law to begin and it's time for the rule of law to apply to everyone, including politicians who violate it, not just the rest of us.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Jimmy Chitwood said:
thought i'd revive this thread by getting it back on track.

now, you are assumed to be involved in criminal activities for simply riding in the passenger seat of a car.
smiley5.gif
smiley7.gif


The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.


I knew this kind of thing would happen! Just last year I was watching these videos of cops and "border patrol" who were 50 miles inside the US doing this kind of stuff to American citizens, illegally. This decision will be one of the nails in the coffin of our dwindlingfreedom. Sickening!


smiley11.gif
smiley7.gif
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Indiana bill allows DNA to be taken after arrest whether suspect is guilty or not.
Tens of thousands of Hoosiers never convicted of a crime could find their DNA in state and federal databases under a bill making its way through the Indiana Senate.

Bill would expand Homeland Security's collection of bio-metric information
A new bill proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals including terrorists.

The reality of FEMA camps and the Martial Law Apparatus
There is no doubt that the government is preparing a nationwide system of detention facilities under the guise of emergency management that could be used to house large quantities of Americans during a time of civil strife. Many think that it is a conspiracy theory, but it is not. It is a fact that the federal government has many facilities right now that can be used to house large numbers of political dissidents if the need arises.[

New Bill propozed to Federalize college and university's campus security
A new bill proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to take federal control over the security of College and University campuses across the nation. House Resolution 748 or the CAMPUS Safety Act of 2009' would provide grants to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to assist in carrying out a myriad of functions pertaining to standardizing campus security across the country.

Barrack Obama grants CIA right to carry out renditions.
The banner headlines greeting President Obama's decision to close the detention centre at Guantánamo Bay and secret CIA prisons may have concealed how he has retained one of the most controversial weapons in the War on Terror.

Under executive orders signed on January 22, the CIA appears to have preserved its authority to carry out renditions - by which hundreds of terrorist suspects have been abducted and transferred to prisons in countries with questionable human rights records ...
 

j41181

Master
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
2,344
How spineless have our lawmakers become, letting these illegal immigrant DESPERADOS into the country to forever taint it.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
1,016
My big problem with the Linder article is that it comes across as very paranoid. Now I'm just as against too much government control as the next person, and I agree that the vast majority of these measures are overreaching, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. For some reason though, I am really not as scared as some people are about this.

I like to look at it this way. What would it take to imprison a majority of the American population? It would literally be the other half doing the imprisoning! How would they ever get that many people to do the government's work and do the job properly? You have to remember, the vast majority of people in our military are regular folks that come from regular backgrounds. If you pushed them to far by imprisoning Americans for no good reason, many of them would go AWOL.

Remember, the people in our government are just people like us. They are not superhuman, and they are just as easily swayed and influenced like the rest, except for maybe CIA spies that go under brainwashing. I saw a documentary about three guys that where in Afghanistan and unfortunately were misdirected to a Taliban village. They got rounded up without their passports over the course of months eventually wound up at Guantanamo. The people there kept thinking they were terrorists, asking them where Osama was and such. They put them through the interrigation techniques such as playing loud heavy metal for three hours straight with a strobe-light flashing. The whole time they just didn't realize that these were guys who made a wrong turn. Finally after 18 months in Guantanamo, information came through that these guys were not connected to any terrorism. They still kept them there for another three months or so, but allowed them books, magazines, let them watch movies for several hours twice a week, and let them have fast-food and snacks and other privileges.

Another program I just watched was a report about the marijuana industry in this country. There was one guy selling weed in a retail storefront in California. He has a massive indoor growing area and recieves shipments each week of weed from other places. They sell all sorts of weed and weed products out in the open. And this guy was showing it to TV cameras, not conceiling his identy even though is is a federal crime! The DEA and FBI won't do anything about it! Aparently, if they shut down the entire marijuana industry, they would lose lots of tax money and have to provide a lot more welfare This all happened under Bush, that so many people feared as an authoritarian dictator. If Bush allowed these people to get away with selling mass amounts of illegal drugs, then I just don't have much confidence that they are going to put a massive number of people away just for fun.

My point is that I in no way consider any of these laws correct or proper, just that I am not as paranoid as some that we are all going to be sent to mass slaughter, because remember they are just people too. They need money and resources to do this. How are they going to keep hundreds of millions of people locked up, keep them fed and clothed? What's going to happen to all the businesses and consumers in America? Who's going to watch TV and buy products? Who's going to work at Wal-Mart and McDonald's?

I am just like anyone else when it comes to knowledge of liberal multi-culturalist and cultural-marxist ideas. I know that in business and politics people play favors and compromise their values to try to get ahead. I know that elections get screwed in a lot of places due to our rediculous voting laws that allow practically anyone to vote whenever they want, and allow votes to be added or subtracted for stupid reasons. But you just need to look at history to realise that if someone plays the game to heavyhanded eventually they come falling apart. Just look at Enron. If anything, that company was the epitomy of the Globalist Elite who would favor an NWO. But they could only cook their books and take people's money for so long, and then it all fell apart and their CEO comitted suicide! Wal-Mart can only do so much that if they tried to force people to work without pay the people would just leave. If they forced people to have their whole pay-check direct-deposited to Wal-Mart and you would have to shop there with credits, people would just start stealing like crazy and it would go out of business! And that's the biggest company, I guess the very top of the globalist elite. And everyone knows the government cannot run the whole economy. Even the iron grip of Russia all fell apart, because these things can only go for so long.

My point is that while freedom isn't free and we should do whatever we can to protect it, it will always win in the LONG run, because otherwise everyone is just a slave. Even the slave-drivers are slaves to their slave drivers. At some point the middle slave drivers realize their is nothing to gain in their system, so people simply stop working and go to a black market. At some point it reaches a critical mass where even people in the government deal with the black market, until you have enough defections and th system falls apart.

Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to remind everyone that they are people just like us, and they have no more inherent power than we do. Maybe I am just naive, but remember I know our history and how our federal government has only increased control, and has almost never given it up. I am on your side and for more freedom, and less control. I just don't think we are totally screwed. Now if you think we are going to get into a Terminator like scenario were we are fighting againt machines, well then maybe we all are screwed
smiley5.gif
Edited by: Electric Slide
 

bigunreal

Mentor
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
1,923
The Supreme Court is just as bad as Congress and all the Presidents we've elected for the past 40+ years. This decision is similar to the one a few years back, which held that police are able to confiscate property, even when it is owned by someone who wasn't arrested for anything. This was the result of a poor woman whose husband was arrested with a prostitute in HER car. The car was confiscated by police, and the woman (obviously, very reasonably) was outraged that not only was her husband with a prostitute, she'd also had her car taken away.

Americans are just as in love with "law enforcement" as they are with "African-Americans." I doubt if a majority of citizens would even vote for the Bill of Rights, if they had the chance. We are infatuated with throwing people in prison for the most innocuous "crimes." I just heard on the radio that some poor sap was given 2 1/2-5 years in prison for posting nude pictures of his ex-wife on the web. That's just incredible. Criminal charges for something like that? Up to FIVE years in prison for posting pictures? What next- incarcerate people for "illegally" downloading music or videos? It's really no more absurd that charging someone with a "hate crime." We desperately need fewer laws, some honest police and far more civil libertarians in public office.
 

devans

Mentor
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
729
Location
Outside North America
Here is an article about a British diplomat who shouted a few angry remarks at the TV as he was on an exercise bike in his Gym watching the news reports about the recent attacks on Gaza.
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CSteve%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" target="_blank" target="_blank"><!--[if gte mso 9]><>
<w:Word>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:Word>
</><![endif]--><style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.Msonormal, li.Msonormal, div.Msonormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-er-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-s ize:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso- padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001 pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
fon t-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->



[url]http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.british/browse_th read/thread/628c1135d2f152ae[/url]


He has been arrested and if found guilty faces up to seven years in prison!

This is an illustration why many people (myself included) take pains to maintain their anonymity when posting on this site. I know some posters see this as "wimpy" or lacking courage, but this is the kind of thing, albeit an exaggerated example, that people who choose to express even mildly non PC opinions have to face in the UK.

Edited by: devans
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
National Security Council powers to be expanded. Again.
President Obama plans to order a sweeping overhaul of the National Security Council, expanding its membership and increasing its authority to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues.

Police agencies in Texas siezing property from people who haven't even been charged with criminal activity.
A two-decade-old state law that grants authorities the power to seize property used in crimes is wielded by some agencies against people who never are charged with â€â€￾ much less convicted of â€â€￾ criminal activity

Government to maintain list of people who aren't terrorists.
The House overwhelmingly adopted legislation this week mandating the creation of a new kind of terrorist watchlist: a database of people who aren't terrorists, but are routinely flagged at airports anyway.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Unreal stuff there JC, but it isbecoming the norm in Amerika.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Militarizing police departments with your bailout money.

some excerpts:
George Orwell, call your office !

- Frisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. You know, for all that gang tank warfare going on up in Frisco.
McKinney wants $5 million for SWAT toys and stuff.

- North Richland Hills wants $51,000 for volunteer patrol volunteers. Let's throw in $10 for a dictionary so they can look up the word "volunteer."

- Irving wants $5 million for biometric scanners, digital cameras, RFID scanners â€â€￾ nothing Big Brother there.

- Grand Prairie wants $1.25 million for nicer landscaping around the public safety building.

- And finally, Arlington is really gearing up for urban warfare. Arlington wants $1.6 million for SWAT toys including more equipment for those deadly but camera-friendly no-knock raids, $56,000 for military grade carbines, $625,000 for unmanned aerial surveillance drones, and $130,000 for "covert ops."

- Pleasanton, California wants $250,000 to buy a vehicle for its SWAT team.

- Gary, Indiana wants $750,000 for a host of "modernization" upgrades to its police department, including "sub-automatic machine guns" and an "armored vehicl" [sic].

- Hampton, Virginia wants a whopping $3.5 million for "Air Tactical Unit Support and Equipment," which I'm pretty sure means they want a sweet helicopter for the SWAT team.

- Ottawa, Illinois (population: 18,307) wants $60,000 to purchase, among other things, five "tactical entry rifles."

- Glendale Heights, Illinois wants $96,000 to purchase red light cameras, and another $67,000 to hire someone to monitor them.

- Toward a more Orwellian America! The following cities requested stimulus funds to supplement, initiate, or upgrade public surveillance camera systems: Brockton, Massachusetts; Buffalo, New York; Burnsville, Minnesota; Caguas, Puerto Rico; Cerritos, California; Columbia, South Carolina; Compton, California; Homestead, Florida; Hormigueros, Puerto Rico; Indianapolis, Indiana; Inglewood, California; Lewiston, Maine; Lorain, Ohio; Lynn, Massachusetts; Marion, Ohio; Merced, California; New Rochelle, New York; North Richland Hills, Texas; Oakland, California; Orange, New Jersey; Orem, Utah; Orlando, Florida; Pembroke Pines, Florida; Ponce, Puerto Rico; Riverdale, Illinois; Shreveport, Louisiana; Silver City, New Mexico; Sumter, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; Warren, Ohio; and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

- Winston-Salem, North Carolina requested just under $85 million in security-related stimulation. But top prize goes to Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is asking the rest of the country to stimulte its economy with a whopping $135 million in public safety-related requests.

All in all, America's mayors asking for a little over $5.5 billion in public safety "stimulus."
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
another good column by Paul Craig Roberts regardig the push to take away the 2nd Amendment.

some excerpts:
The US Constitution has few friends on the right or the left.

During the first eight years of the 21st century, the Republicans mercilessly assaulted civil liberties. The brownshirt Bush regime ignored the protections provided by habeas corpus. They spied on American citizens without warrants. They violated the First Amendment. They elevated decisions of the president above US statutory law and international law. They claimed the power to withhold information from the people's representatives in Congress, and they asserted, and behaved as if, they were unaccountable to the people, Congress, and the federal courts. The executive branch claimed the power to ignore congressional subpoenas. Republicans regarded Bush as a Stuart king unaccountable to law.

The Bush brownshirt regime revealed itself as lawless, the worst criminal organization in American history.

Now we have the Democrats, and the assault on civil liberty continues. President Obama doesn't want to hold Bush accountable for his crimes and violations of the Constitution, because Obama wants to retain the powers that Bush asserted. Even the practice of kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries to be tortured has been retained by President Obama.

The civil liberties that Bush stole from us are now in Obama's pocket.

Will it turn out that we enjoyed more liberty under Bush than we will under Obama?

...

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D, IL) has introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. As the British and Australians learned, once firearms are registered, the government knows where they are. The government's next step is to confiscate the firearms.

...

William Blackstone, the revered 18th century defender of liberty whose Commentaries on the Laws of England was a bestseller in colonial America, wrote that "the last auxiliary right" of free men is "having arms for their defense." Blackstone, England's greatest jurist, said that the right to bear arms enables the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

The Bush regime's reversion to medieval methods of incarceration and torture are an indication that we now live in a time "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

...

England, in violation of its unwritten constitution, banned ownership of pistols and rifles. But now the police have to be heavily armed, because criminals are now armed, but not law-abiding citizens. When I lived in England, the police were not armed with firearms. I remember reading a few years after the passage of England's gun ban that criminals were selling submachine guns on London street corners. The police discovered a warehouse in London filled to the brim with machine guns that were being sold to all comers.

So much for gun bans. They only disarm the law-abiding and leave them defenseless.

Gun bans also greatly increase the crime rate. When households are armed, robbers prefer houses where no one is home. In England, criminals are no longer deterred from entering an occupied home. The more people at home the better. There might be someone to rape and someone to beat up. There is little to fear from a disarmed household.

When I lived in the metro area of Washington DC, I resided on the Virginia side of the Potomac. There was no problem with owning a gun in Virginia, but in DC, until the recent Supreme Court ruling, the only way a person could have a firearm was to keep it disassembled and unloaded.

The Washington "gun control" ordinance benefitted criminals. The crime rate in DC was much higher than across the river. Despite, or because of, the gun ban, DC was the murder capital of the US.

Police seldom, if ever, prevent a crime. Their job is to appear after a crime is committed and to investigate with a view to identifying the perpetrator. A large number of careful studies show that private gun ownership prevents far more crimes than police ever solve. Criminals are routinely deterred, apprehended, and sometimes killed, by armed private citizens.

In contrast, police, especially the notorious SWAT teams, accidentally kill more law abiding citizens than they do criminals. If anyone should be disarmed, it is the police. When police become militarized, as they increasingly are in the US, their attitude toward the public changes from protective to hostile.

Militarized SWAT teams have established a record of showing up at the wrong address.

In Maryland recently, a SWAT team mistook the mayor and his wife for drug dealers. A large number of armed men in black, and not identified as police, broke into the mayor's home, killed the family's Labrador dogs, and held the mayor and his wife spread eagled on the floor with loaded automatic weapons a few inches from their heads. Fortunately for the mayor and his wife, a local policeman happened by and informed the paramilitary unit that it was the mayor and his wife whom the SWAT team was terrorizing...
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
1,016
Jimmy I remember that story with the SWAT team raiding the mayor's house. There was a box of weed sent to the house so a dealer could swoop by and pick it up. The police caught wind of the package, let it be delivered, and then once the deliveryman left it at the doorstep they blasted through the door, shot the dogs, and handcuffed the mayor, his wife, and mother in law. The police did not have a "no-knock" warrent. The story quickly faded from the news, and I have not heard any word of charges being filed against those responsible for this home illegal home-invasion. Just another example of the incompetance of the overarching nanny-state government. Here's an article on the story:

[url]http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/02/another-police-rai d-more-dead-dogs/[/url]
 

j41181

Master
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
2,344
I wouldn't surprise me if former mobsters-now in badges were all behind these police brutalities. The police departments of the nation are just full of bureaucracy nonsense and corruption.Edited by: j41181
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
after reading this column and the relevant facts that prompted it, i wonder what the federal gov't thinks about us... the time to make a hard choice is getting very near, i'm afraid.


March 17, 2009
<H1>Missouri State Police Think You And I Are Terrorists</H1>


By Chuck Baldwin
Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"'militia' influenced terrorists."[/B] The report, he said, <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties."[/B]
Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"militia movement"[/B] and <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order."[/B]
This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"defenders"[/B] of the Constitution as <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"right-wing extremists."[/B] However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.
According to the MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a potential threat to the police. The MIAC report also refers to Aaron Russo's film, <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"America: Freedom to Fascism."[/B]
The story exposing the MIAC report states, <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists."[/B]
See the report here.
The Columbia Daily Tribune also carried the story last Saturday. It quoted Missouri resident Tim Neal of Miller County. <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"When Neal read the report, he couldn't help but think it described him. A military veteran and a delegate to the 2008 Missouri Republican state convention, he didn't appreciate being lumped in with groups like the Neo-Nazis.<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"'I was going down the list and thinking, "Check, that's me,"' he said. 'I'm a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I've got the "America: Freedom to Fascism" video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I'm a domestic terrorist? Because I've got a video about the Federal Reserve?'"<O:p></O:p>[/B]
The Tribune's report also acknowledges, <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"The [MIAC] report's most controversial passage states that militia 'most commonly associate with third-party political groups' and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional [sic] Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year."[/B]
The Tribune report also said, <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won't know whether it's because he was speeding or because of his political views."[/B]
See the Columbia Tribune report here:<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">'Fusion center' data draws fire over assertions[/I], by T. J. Greaney, March 14, 2009,
I realize that there are people who will dismiss this kind of story as insignificant. They shouldn't. This is very serious and should be treated as such. Anyone who knows anything at all about history knows that before a state or national government can persecute--and commit acts of violence against--a group of people, they must first marginalize the group from society's mainstream and categorize it as dangerous.
Rome did exactly that to Christians, as did Mao's China; Hitler's Germany did the same thing to Jews; Stalin's Russia did the same thing to political dissenters, etc. That a State police agency in America would actually infer that people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself in a political campaign are somehow indistinguishable from violence-prone <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"militias"[/B] is beyond insulting: it is a smear campaign, and might should even be regarded as a hate crime!
Beyond that, the MIAC report paints with a very broad brush. In addition to supporting Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, a review of the report reveals that opposition to any of the following risks someone being classified as a potential <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"domestic terrorist"[/B]:
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" =disc>
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The New World Order
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The United Nations
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Gun Control
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The violation of Posse Comitatus
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The Federal Reserve
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The Income Tax
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The Ammunition Accountability Act
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">A possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">The North American Union
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Universal Service Program
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Abortion on demand
<LI =Msonormal style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Illegal Immigration </LI>[/list]
Again, if you oppose any of the above, or if you supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, you risk being labeled a <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"domestic terrorist,"[/B] according to the MIAC.
Do you not see how dangerous this kind of slanderous labeling can become? It could affect your flight status when you try to board an airline. It could affect your application for sensitive jobs. It could affect your adjudication before a court or judge. It could make you a target for aggressive law enforcement strategies. It could affect your being able to obtain a passport. It could affect one's ability to purchase a firearm or receive a State concealed weapon permit.
This is very serious business! We are not talking about private opinions. We are talking about law enforcement agencies. And remember, most law enforcement agencies share these types of reports; therefore, how many other state police agencies have similar reports floating around? Probably several. Plus, how do we know that this report was not influenced by federal police agencies? We don't.
Rest assured, I do not plan to take this lying down. As one who is personally named in the above report, I demand a public retraction and apology from the MIAC and Missouri State Police. I can tell you that my family is extremely distraught that their husband, father, and grandfather would be labeled in such a manner. I am also not ruling out legal action. In addition, I am discussing an appropriate response with Ron Paul and Bob Barr. I will keep readers posted as to what comes of these discussions (as I am at liberty to do so, of course).
In the meantime, I encourage everyone who believes in the freedom of speech and who believes that the MIAC report is an egregious miscarriage of justice to contact the appropriate Missouri police officials. Here is the contact information:
Email address: Brandon.middleton@mshp.dps.mo.gov
Missouri Information Analysis Center
Division of Drugs &amp; Crime Control
P. O. Box 568
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568
Phone: 573-751-6422
Toll Free: 866-362-6422
Fax: 573-751-9950
And lest one thinks that none of this concerns him or her, I would like to remind you of the lament of Martin Niemoeller back in the days of Hitler's Germany. Niemoeller was a decorated U-Boat Captain and pastor of great distinction. An avid anti-communist, Niemoeller at first supported Hitler's rise to power and was hesitant to oppose the violations of civil rights against various groups he personally found distasteful. It did not take long, however, before Niemoeller realized that when laws protecting the rights of all were removed from some, no one was safe--including him. Unfortunately, he learned his lesson too late, as he, too, was persecuted and imprisoned by Hitler's State Police. Here is what Niemoeller said about his indifference:
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">"They came first for the communists, and I did not speak up-<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> because I was not a communist;<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up-<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> because I was not a trade unionist;<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up-<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> because I was not a Jew;<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">And then they came for me-<O:p></O:p>[/B]
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> and there was no one left to speak up."[/B]
So, those of you who think you have nothing to fear because you did not vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or me, or because you do not live in the State of Missouri need to think again. As I have repeatedly said, we either have freedom for all, or we have freedom for none. Truly, secret police reports such as the one above threaten the liberties of us all.
So, will you speak up now or wait until they come for you and no one is left to speak up?
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
Obama's police goons are tailing lawyer who has brought legal challenges regarding the "President"'s legitimacy to hold office.


BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him
Reports incidents involving county, federal agents


Posted: March 25, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
©2009WorldNetDaily



<DIV =Kona BonHn="true">


A lawyer spearheading the effort in Washington state to bring light to the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says he was shadowed all day today by officers with the federal Department of Homeland Security, the Snohomish County sheriff's office and the Everitt city police department.


"There's definitely observation," attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. "Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest."


Pidgeon has been the attorney for Washington state plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for that office to be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen. Dozens of similar cases have been filed around the country since the election and many have been dismissed, often because judges rule the plaintiffs don't have "standing" to bring a complaint.


The Washington state case, however, cites state law that vests in citizens the right to raise questions about an elected official's authority, effectively granting standing to those plaintiffs.


click the link for the whole article. ominous, indeed...
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
"Bacrock" is a grade A puppet, & thus the Globalists are cracking down on any questioning, challenges of his POTUS status.

Jimmy, I've seen similar documents (for "law" enforcement) for other agencies stating that folks who allude to the Constitution, 2nd Amendment, etc. too much as "potentially dangerous". This propaganda is pure Orwellian totalitarian. If MIAC doesn't pull that slander, Dr.Paul, Baldwin & Barr should file suit!
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
i've read a column by Chuck Baldwin that he is indeed filing a lawsuit, along with Ron Paul and Bob Barr,demanding that the appropriate people recant their obvious lies and assaults on the character of not only the named men, but also their supporters and supporters of the cited documents and political positions.


what is troubling is that there has been no reporting of this incident by the mainstream media. the silence is deafening...
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Good news on the Baldwin/Paul/Barr controversy. Public pressure spurred on by Baldwin has caused the state to rescind the report with several people on the hot seat because of it. Baldwin's actions inspired people to fax, write, and phone, their congressmen and other officials. He's still on the issue too. All done without the mainstream media! Nice work! I think Mr. Baldwin has a bright future.

article
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
Jaxvid,

I voted for Dr.Baldwin for POTUS and support his paleoconservative, Christian platform. I was glad to see him, Dr.Paul and Barr call these Orwellians out on this BS!
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas

Tom Iron

Mentor
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
1,597
Location
New Jersey
Good morning Gentlemen,

Just the other day, I had a runin with a cop who did something so stupid, it makes me dizzy to even think about it. I'm not going to go into any details (it all had to do with my walking - nobody walks around here except me and mexicans), but I talked to him like a Sgt. Major talking to a private. He had a dog in the patrol car with him and I told him the dog should drive for the rest of his shift. I asked if he wanted to see my ID and when he said yes, I gave it to him and told him to check it out let me get about my business. That I didn't have time to talk to him. What a total idiot that man is.

It's hard to believe he can put his clothes on by himself.

Tom Iron...
 

DWFan

Mentor
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
741
Tom Iron, if I had the presence to get away with that, I'd go and get myself harassed right now!

I wish I could've seen that!
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
your papers, please?
smiley7.gif


Texas Bill requires you to identify yourself at all times.

Bill Would Require You to Identify Yourself At All Times
any 'peace officer' can demand i.d. any time, doesn't say exactly who qualifies as a 'peace officer.'
By Jim Forsyth
Thursday, April 16, 2009

Papers please!!

The Texas Senate has approved a bizarre measure which would require citizens to show some sort of identification to any police officer who demands it, at any time, for any reason, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Currently, it is illegal for a person to give a false name to police, but there is no law requiring a person to provide i.d. at an officer's whim. And State Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) doesn't like the sound of this bill.

"We still live in a free society," he said. "I don't want police officers to be able to pull you over and ask that you identify yourself."

The bill would also require individuals to provide their date of birth and 'residence address' to police.

Supporters of the bill, like State Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) says there are safeguards.

"A police officer would not have the discretion just to come over and ask for i.d. on just anybody," he said.

Hinojosa said the officer would have to have a 'good reason' to demand identification ...

The bill also does not spell out any safeguards or recource for citizens who are asked at random to identify themselves to police.
Edited by: Jimmy Chitwood
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,193
Location
Pennsylvania
This is a very worthwhile read. The author, William Norman Grigg, a former JBSer, is Mexican and Irish and writes many pertinent articles on the growing police state.


Revenge of the 'Waco Gene'


The Regime has made it official that "right-wing extremism" is a threat to Homeland Security.


That political genus is divided into two species - "white supremacist and anti-government groups" - with the latter further differentiated into various sub-species, including immigration reform activists, "disgruntled military veterans," gun rights advocates, members of citizen militia groups, anti-globalists, constitutionalists, "hate groups," and others deemed politically unsuitable by the Regime.


Less than two years ago, Congress enacted - by a vote of 404-6 - the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Its first offspring was an official commission to examine potential content-based Internet restrictions. At some point, it also begat a specialized section within the Homeland Security Department called the Extremism and Radicalization Branch (which we'll call the ERB).


This means that for the first time in American history, the federal government has a full-time intelligence organ devoted exclusively to scrutinizing the political opinions and affiliations of U.S. citizens. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this development as a milestone in our nation's apostasy from its founding as a constitutional republic.


Earlier this month, the ERB's "Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division" issued a nine-page "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" of "right-wing extremism" for the supposed benefit of state and local law enforcement agencies. That document consists of reheated leftovers from several previous "intelligence analyses" of the "radical right," including the FBI's notorious 1999 Project Megiddo broadside.


The ERB report concludes with the observation that the Department of Homeland Security "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization."


This is significant chiefly because it acknowledges that every "local" police agency in the United States is now a sensory organ, and enforcement appendage, of the Homeland Security State.


As partners with the Department of Homeland Security, your thoughtful and friendly "local" police and state police will be expected to gather intelligence on "extremists" within their jurisdictions and provide it to the Feds. And in the event that they're required to do so by their "partners" in Washington, those same state and "local" police will be expected to question, arrest, or detain those designated to be severe risks to "homeland security."


In this connection it's useful to remember that the Obama administration has taken care to preserve all of the necessary Bush-era precedents regarding the summary imprisonment of those designated "unlawful enemy combatants" by presidential decree, the suspension of habeas corpus, and even the practice of torture as a means of "enhanced interrogation."


The prospect of the exercise of those powers by the incumbent is causing a loss of bladder control among many of the same GOP-aligned polemicists who insisted that they were perfectly safe when placed at the disposal of his predecessor. This development was as predictable as the "plot" of a porno film. And as Salon's admirable civil libertarian columnist Glen Greenwald emphasizes, the report on the "radical right" was actually begun under the Bush administration.


In the institutional memory of the American Right, the early Clinton years were characterized by two entirely unnecessary atrocities involving culturally isolated "extremists": The attack on the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho - which led to the murder of Sammy and Vicki Weaver - and the 51-day standoff at Mt. Carmel, Texas, which culminated in the holocaust of April 19, 1993.


The unbearable memory of those episodes, exacerbated by the "assault weapons" ban, did much to catalyze resistance to the Clinton administration. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a widespread, and growing, appreciation for the lethal potential of what we could call the federal government's "Waco gene" - its latent tendency to isolate, dehumanize, criminalize, and even annihilate those considered to be incorrigible internal enemies.


But although this early Clinton-era anti-government backlash was rooted in worthy and entirely justified sentiments, it was poorly focused in one fairly significant respect: Clinton and his properly maligned Attorney General Janet Reno had relatively little to do with the planning and execution of the ATF's assault on the Branch Davidians, and nothing at all to do with the criminal assault on the Weaver family. Those were anti-"extremist" initiatives planned and/or carried out by the administration of George Bush the Elder.


(It's not my intention to demolish a straw man by mentioning Ruby Ridge in this connection; on many occasions I've heard that incident paired with Waco when people have recited the litany of the Clinton administration's crimes.)


During the reign of Bush the Dumber, the GOP-aligned punditocracy insisted that only "peace creeps" and people who perversely sympathize with suicide bombers were outraged over the executive branch's assault on the Bill of Rights.


When Bush put the chainsaw to due process guarantees running back to Runnymede and mowed them down like so much overgrowth on his postage-stamp "ranch," some principled voices - with Ron Paul, as always, leading that tiny chorus - took up a refrain similar to that put in the mouth of Sir Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons" after his son-in-law William Roper urged a similar clear-cutting approach to the law.


More, suspected of disloyalty by King Henry VIII, is approached in his home by Richard Rich,* a contemptible opportunist known to be a royal spy. Rich fishes for a bribe, baiting More with the implied threat of blackmail, only to be rebuked and sent away. As Rich leaves, More is urged by his family to place him under arrest.


When More points out that Rich hadn't committed a crime, and that even "the Devil himself" is entitled to the protection of the law, Roper angrily exclaims that he would "cut down every law in England" to get to the Devil.


"And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" More inquired. "This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, and not God's - and if you cut them down - and you are just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes - I'd give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."


Transfixed by the demonic evil of Islamic terrorism, intoxicated by a sense of vindictive righteousness, the Republican Right eagerly collaborated in the effort to mow down legal protections for those designated enemies of the state. With the frustrated puzzlement of dimwitted children they now find themselves naked and shivering in the wind - and that chill blast is a mere zephyr compared to the Force Ten gale that's coming.


For a long time, conservatives have extracted much undeserved pleasure from the aphorism that "A law-and-order conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." Now they're given an opportunity to learn the truth of its counterpart: "A civil libertarian is a law-and-order conservative who suffered an ass-beating at the hands of the police." Perhaps this lesson could be learned - but, given the propensity of conservatives to miss the obvious and resist admissions of error, I'm not optimistic.


One aspect of the ERB's "Intelligence Assessment" that offers cause for unintended mirth is the concern it expresses over the possibility that the ongoing economic collapse is being "exploited" by "rightwing extremists." The unspoken corollary here, of course, is that our rulers would never exploit economic or political upheavals in order to aggrandize their own power - the well-documented eagerness of both the Bushi'ites and the Obamatrons not to "let a serious crisis go to waste" notwithstanding.


You see, according to the Collectivist Lexicon, when those exercising the powers of government suspect the worst of the people they rule, it's called vigilance; when those on the receiving end of government power suspect the worst of their rulers, it's called paranoia.


In the interest of clarity, I should point out that, as the term is typically used today, a "paranoid" is someone who notices things without government permission. Similarly, a "conspiracy theorist" is anyone who draws unacceptable anti-government conclusions from politically inconvenient facts.


A "hate group" consists of any group of people who are hated by collectivists.


And a "terrorist" is anyone, anywhere, who is imprisoned, tortured, or killed by the state with extreme prejudice. In the near future we may see some interesting applications of that infinitely flexible definition.


When citizens are hyper-vigilant toward government, liberty is one possible result. Where government is hyper-vigilant toward is subjects, tyranny is the inevitable outcome.<A name=ref></A>


*A painful personal admission: Richard Rich, the despicable invertebrate who betrayed the heroic St. Thomas More, is a distant ancestor (by adoption, I hasten to point out).


http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w91.html
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
DHS REPORT SAYS "DISGRUNTLED MILITARY VETERANS" MIGHT BE "RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS"

By Chuck Baldwin
April 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

On the heels of the now infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has just released an "assessment" report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." With virtually no references, documentation, or annotations, the report, which was released to all branches of American law enforcement, demonizes a host of citizens as having the capacity to become violent "rightwing extremists."

The DHS report warns law enforcement to be on guard against anyone who opposes illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, "free trade agreements," gun control, the "New World Order," "One World Government," the outsourcing of American jobs, the "perceived" threat to U.S. sovereignty by foreign powers, abortion, "declarations of martial law," "the creation of citizen detention camps," "suspension of the U.S. Constitution," or the abridgement of State authority. Also branded are people who believe in "end times" prophecies, and who "stockpile" food, ammunition, or firearms.

I dare say that at least 75% (or more) of the American people have beliefs that fall into one or more categories of the above list. If you are one of them, DHS suspects you of being a "rightwing extremist." But there is more.

The DHS report specifically warns law enforcement to be on guard against "disgruntled military veterans," especially veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You read it right.

Well, if anyone has a legitimate reason to be disgruntled, it is America's veterans. After taking an oath to defend and support America and the U.S. Constitution, they were ordered to fight a preemptive war of aggression in Iraq; they were ordered to fight without a Declaration of War; they were ordered to put their lives on the line, not for the safety and security of the American people, but for international bankers, the United Nations, and the "global economy." Then they returned home to a Department of Veteran's Affairs that treats them as second-class citizens: VA hospitals are often dirty and out-of-date; medical treatments are postponed; medications often take months to arrive; and much of the promised care is never delivered at all. If anyone has a right to be disgruntled, it is a military veteran.

That said, where is the evidence in the DHS report to substantiate the necessity for American law enforcement to be on guard against potential violence committed by military veterans? It doesn't exist. It is a blanket charge without any substantiation whatsoever. The same is true for the rest of the report. Without documentation, substantiation, or annotation, the report broadly brushes a host of American citizens as being potential "extremists" simply because of their political opinions. This is the same kind of political profiling that we saw in the Missouri report.

Veterans groups nationwide are rightfully "up in arms" over the DHS report. Feeling the wrath of public opinion, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday "apologized" for "offending" veterans.

Fox News reported, "American Legion National Commander David Rehbein, who blasted the report earlier this week as incomplete and politically-biased, said he was pleased with Napolitano's apology." But not all veterans groups share Rehbein's spirit of forgiveness.

Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, snarled, "It wasn't an apology in my view. It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it." Hegseth has it right!

Napolitano did not apologize for the report; she only said she was sorry that vets were "offended" by the report. There is a vast difference. This is the typical cow manure that we are accustomed to from non-elected bureaucrats, especially federal bureaucrats.

And please notice that Napolitano offered no "apology" to pro-lifers, proponents of the Second Amendment, constitutionalists, Christians, or anyone else. She couldn't care less if any of these folks were offended. She was only sorry that veterans were offended.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) also rightly blasted the DHS report, saying its portrayal of veterans was "offensive and unacceptable."

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, "The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That's like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."

Ladies and gentlemen, the American people must put a stop to this burgeoning political profiling that is currently being forced upon law enforcement. I urge every reader of this column to immediately contact your U.S. House member and two U.S. Senators, demanding that they put a stop to this right now!

In the meantime, I believe we can also assume that the source of all of these reports is either Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or both. If this is true (and we desperately need some attorneys who are willing to file lawsuits in which evidentiary material may be gleaned during discovery to substantiate these assumptions), the SPLC and ADL--and those government bureaucrats who assist them--need to be exposed and held accountable. The days of political "witch-hunting" must come to an end. Furthermore, the days of radical leftwing organizations, such as SPLC and ADL, being allowed to use federal and state police agencies to demonize and terrorize private citizens because of their political beliefs must also come to an end.

Obviously, DHS is still stinging from the embarrassment and setback of the Missouri report, in which three of last year's Presidential candidates (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself) were personally named. In essence, people who voted for and/or supported any one of us were directly labeled as being potential dangerous "militia members." This blatant and outlandish accusation resulted in a maelstrom of protest, which concluded with the report being completely withdrawn. And this is exactly what people should demand in the case of the DHS report: it should be immediately withdrawn!

The current DHS report does not include personal names, except the name of Timothy McVeigh, who is used as an example of what any "disgruntled military veteran" could become. It does, however, regurgitate the familiar themes of the Missouri report: the same groups; the same beliefs; the same generalizations; the same innuendoes; the same broad brushing; the same warnings; the same mischaracterizations; the same political profiling.

As with the Missouri officials, Janet Napolitano has made a critical misjudgment. By including veterans in her broad sweep of "rightwing extremists," she has shown her true colors: and they are not Red, White and Blue. Veterans throughout America should insist that not only must the report be rescinded, but Ms. Napolitano must also resign.


***Reference article...
 
Top