In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A War Against the American People
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
A War Against the American People
Paul Craig Roberts
July 20, 2002
During the Cold War, when the United States faced a really dangerous adversary capable of incinerating our entire country in 30 minutes, we kept to our principles, stressing the virtues of a free society over Soviet communism.
The Cold War must have sapped our strength. Now, faced with Muslim terrorists who are nothing in comparison to Soviet ICBMs, we have adopted the methods of our former communist adversaries. The Bush administration is putting in place the neighborhood informant system used by the infamous Stasi, the communist East German secret police.
Bush's plan, known as TIPS, Terrorism Information and Prevention System, intends to turn one out of every 24 Americans into a government spy reporting on their fellow citizens.
The results in the United States will be the same as in East Germany. Jealousies, rivalries, misperceptions and inflamed imaginations will result in the reporting of many innocent people, who will be investigated, questioned, detained and, on occasion, framed.
Conservative gun owners will be likely targets of anti-gun liberals. Hunters will be reported by animal rights activists. Career rivals and rivals for the attention of a member of the opposite sex will be tempted to nudge each other out of contention with "suspicious activity" reports.
The irresponsible American media will make mountains out of molehills. As hysteria mounts, more people will feel a patriotic duty to report their neighbors. Jokes, protests, comparisons to the Stasi will all become evidence of disloyalty.
The war against terrorism has just begun, and already it has turned into a war against the American people. The U.S. government's fear of its own citizens first manifested itself in "airport security." Everyone is subject to warrantless and unreasonable searches. Regular air travelers observe that the vast majority of people searched could not possibly be terrorists, even if their lives depended on it.
Yet the mass insult of American citizens by their own government continues unabated. Millions of man-hours are wasted standing in lines while the moronic policy of searching feeble elderly couples, young mothers with babies and U.S. military officers wastes taxpayers' dollars.
The Bush administration's assumption is that every citizen is a potential terrorist. An entire new federal bureaucracy exists for the purpose of violating the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable search.
The government's fear of the American people exceeds the ability of bureaucrats to control us. To make sure we are properly watched, the Bush administration is recruiting 12 million Americans to report on their fellows.
What's going on here? Why are 12 million Americans, in addition to thousands of government police agents with unprecedented eavesdropping powers, needed to ferret out the suspected 5,000 terrorists in the United States?
The best complexion that can be put on this is that the U.S. government has realized the insanity of the multicultural-diversity-open-borders-visas-to-all-immigrants-from-everywhere mindset that has turned the United States into a sanctuary for terrorists and illegal aliens. Too cowardly to deal with the immigration issue, the government instead has adopted police-state methods to watch the population.
It is amazing to watch conservatives and patriots cheer on the advent of the Orwellian state. A new bureaucracy will be formed to record suspicious activity reports from the 12 million citizen informants. Once the police state bureaucracy is in place, it will never be dismantled. As Hoover Institution scholar Martin Anderson has pointed out, not even the fearsome Nixon White House was able to abolish a tiny bureaucracy of tea-tasters.
Milton Friedman said that a country cannot have open borders and a welfare state. Even less can a country welcome multicultural immigrants whose loyalties reside elsewhere. Open borders for terrorists means a police state for citizens.
Rome fell when Romans came to view their government's predations as worse than those of the invaders. Will this be America's fate? Will our government do us more harm than the terrorists?
Dr. Roberts' latest book, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions," has been published by Prima Publishers.
Copyright 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/7/19/180844
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Paul Craig Roberts
July 20, 2002
During the Cold War, when the United States faced a really dangerous adversary capable of incinerating our entire country in 30 minutes, we kept to our principles, stressing the virtues of a free society over Soviet communism.
The Cold War must have sapped our strength. Now, faced with Muslim terrorists who are nothing in comparison to Soviet ICBMs, we have adopted the methods of our former communist adversaries. The Bush administration is putting in place the neighborhood informant system used by the infamous Stasi, the communist East German secret police.
Bush's plan, known as TIPS, Terrorism Information and Prevention System, intends to turn one out of every 24 Americans into a government spy reporting on their fellow citizens.
The results in the United States will be the same as in East Germany. Jealousies, rivalries, misperceptions and inflamed imaginations will result in the reporting of many innocent people, who will be investigated, questioned, detained and, on occasion, framed.
Conservative gun owners will be likely targets of anti-gun liberals. Hunters will be reported by animal rights activists. Career rivals and rivals for the attention of a member of the opposite sex will be tempted to nudge each other out of contention with "suspicious activity" reports.
The irresponsible American media will make mountains out of molehills. As hysteria mounts, more people will feel a patriotic duty to report their neighbors. Jokes, protests, comparisons to the Stasi will all become evidence of disloyalty.
The war against terrorism has just begun, and already it has turned into a war against the American people. The U.S. government's fear of its own citizens first manifested itself in "airport security." Everyone is subject to warrantless and unreasonable searches. Regular air travelers observe that the vast majority of people searched could not possibly be terrorists, even if their lives depended on it.
Yet the mass insult of American citizens by their own government continues unabated. Millions of man-hours are wasted standing in lines while the moronic policy of searching feeble elderly couples, young mothers with babies and U.S. military officers wastes taxpayers' dollars.
The Bush administration's assumption is that every citizen is a potential terrorist. An entire new federal bureaucracy exists for the purpose of violating the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable search.
The government's fear of the American people exceeds the ability of bureaucrats to control us. To make sure we are properly watched, the Bush administration is recruiting 12 million Americans to report on their fellows.
What's going on here? Why are 12 million Americans, in addition to thousands of government police agents with unprecedented eavesdropping powers, needed to ferret out the suspected 5,000 terrorists in the United States?
The best complexion that can be put on this is that the U.S. government has realized the insanity of the multicultural-diversity-open-borders-visas-to-all-immigrants-from-everywhere mindset that has turned the United States into a sanctuary for terrorists and illegal aliens. Too cowardly to deal with the immigration issue, the government instead has adopted police-state methods to watch the population.
It is amazing to watch conservatives and patriots cheer on the advent of the Orwellian state. A new bureaucracy will be formed to record suspicious activity reports from the 12 million citizen informants. Once the police state bureaucracy is in place, it will never be dismantled. As Hoover Institution scholar Martin Anderson has pointed out, not even the fearsome Nixon White House was able to abolish a tiny bureaucracy of tea-tasters.
Milton Friedman said that a country cannot have open borders and a welfare state. Even less can a country welcome multicultural immigrants whose loyalties reside elsewhere. Open borders for terrorists means a police state for citizens.
Rome fell when Romans came to view their government's predations as worse than those of the invaders. Will this be America's fate? Will our government do us more harm than the terrorists?
Dr. Roberts' latest book, "The Tyranny of Good Intentions," has been published by Prima Publishers.
Copyright 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/7/19/180844
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Gregory Kane
Originally published Jun 23, 2002
Gregory Kane
LET'S FIND that wise man or woman who first uttered the saying "Don't make a federal case out of it." Then let's bring him or her - or a descendant, if that person is dead - to Baltimore and have a chat with our mayor and police commissioner.
Mayor Martin O'Malley and police Commissioner Ed Norris are feeling especially chipper these days. The reason? "Federal day" might finally come to the Charm City-That-Reads-When-Its-Citizens-Are-Not-Dodging-Bullets-Fired-By-Criminals.
Sun reporters Del Quentin Wilber and Gail Gibson wrote about "federal day" in a Thursday story. Norris said Thomas DiBiagio, the U.S. attorney for Maryland, might support an idea that goes something like this: Pick one day a month. Any day. All those unlucky enough to be arrested that day on drug, gun or homicide charges won't be tried in state court. A trip to federal court awaits them, with its tough-hombre U.S. attorneys and mandatory minimum sentences and high conviction rates.
Doesn't that sound peachy? Norris thinks so.
"I've seen this work before," Norris told Wilber. "We'll see it work again."
O'Malley, too, is happier than a pauper who has just learned he's been named the sole heir to Bill Gates' fortune. Hizzoner has promised DiBiagio lunch or gift certificates if he enacts federal day. DiBiagio, according to the article, has promised to "take a hard look" at the idea.
Here's a hot flash for O'Malley, Norris and DiBiagio: Take a hard look at the Constitution instead. See any place in there that suggests the powers of the federal and state governments are divided and that the powers of the federal government are limited? Anything in there to suggest the Founding Fathers ever intended for matters that are and should be handled in state courts on a regular basis to be tried at the federal level as much as they are today?
So, class, today's civics lesson will be on that darned annoying Constitution and what the Founding Fathers - those old, white, male fogies - meant when they wrote it. Article III deals with the judicial power of the U.S. government. That power, the fogies insisted, is "vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Anticipating that guys like Norris, O'Malley and DiBiagio would come along, the fogies went a step further in Article III, Section 2, Part 1:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases ... affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies between two or more states; ... between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states."
Little did the fogies know that, more than 200 years in the future, there would be state and federal laws for the same offenses. They could never have envisioned a Project Exile, a program that started in Richmond, Va., with the noble goal of reducing homicides and gun crimes. Under Project Exile, felons who commit crimes with guns are taken to federal court. If convicted, they are sentenced to a federal prison, not a state prison.
Inspired by Project Exile, President Bush has proposed Project Safe Neighborhoods, another program that will have gun-toting varmints who commit crimes hauled into federal court. Conservatives across the country have supported Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods. Conservatives, in each case, are dead wrong.
There's a reason conservatives support such a flagrant intrusion of the federal government into a state matter. Back Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods, the thinking goes, and the anti-gun lobby will get off our necks about being "extremists" on the issues of gun control and the Second Amendment. A compromise will have been reached.
Those of us who believe the Second Amendment applies to individual, not collective, rights - as a 1939 Supreme Court ruling tried to con Americans into believing - see no need for such compromises. Just tell the anti-gun nuts that we're right and they're wrong on this issue and that the debate is over.
Likewise, someone needs to tell O'Malley, Norris and DiBiagio that state crimes need to be handled in state court and that the ever-expanding and intrusive federal government needs to be held in check. "Federal day" is an idea whose time should never have come.
Copyright c 2002, The Baltimore Sun http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.kane23jun23.column
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
Why Are You Not Practicing Civil Disobedience?
by SARTRE
The abstraction of dissent becoming successful reality, through the practice of civil disobedience, is most closely associated with Mahatma Gandhi. The fate of over half a billion population was transformed out of the convictions and actions of an uncommon and extraordinary mystic. Whatever your sentiments about colonial rule and empire, none can deny that the independence of India would have a very different face without the man in the home-spun loincloth and traditional shawl.
The dawn of a new nation in 1947 arose out of the political and cultural turmoil, where Gandhi played a central role. After World War II, the mighty British Empire existed no longer. A Commonwealth emerged that could no longer rely upon Gunga Din's serving and perpetuating British control out of a Rudyard Kipling's myth of glory.
Yes, the times had changed; but Gandhi brought about much of that attitude over years of active involvement.
Gandhi disliked the words and idea of "passive resistance." He preferred the term Satyagraha--a combination of satya (truth-love) and agraha (firmness/force). It is "the vindication of truth not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on one's self." Satyagraha is peaceful; opponents must be converted by a demonstration of purity, humility, and honesty. They are to be converted, not annihilated. Violence and anger create bitterness in the victim and brutality in the attacker.
Appealing to the common sense and morality of his adversary was key. "It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honored by humiliation of their fellow human beings." Satyagraha assumes there is a constant dialogue between the opponents with a view to ultimate reconciliation. Insults, threats, and propaganda only serve to obstruct the goal.
Gandhi called upon his countrymen to follow no other gospel than the gospel of self-sacrifice that precedes every battle. Whether you belong to the school of violence or non-violence, you will still have to go through the fire of sacrifice and discipline. He raised the level of individual dissent to the height of organized resistance. During the confrontation over the Salt Acts, he saw the outcome as a struggle against a system that had reduced India politically to serfdom. "It has sapped the foundations of our culture . . . it has degraded us spiritually. . . ." He stated his ambition was no less than to convert the British people through nonviolence, and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India. "I do not seek to harm your people. I want to serve them even as I want to serve my own . . . ."
By bringing together disaffected, alienated and desperate masses, he was able to apply the best kind of political pressure; namely, moral indignation. When the wrath of ordinary populace rally within their own communities, the potential for meaningful antagonism towards the ruling powers has a practical chance to fundamentally alter the status quo.
That is the essence of proactive civil disobedience. Consider his own words:
"If man will only realize that it is unmanly to obey laws that are unjust, no man's tyranny will enslave him."
"Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute, and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law--to the strength of the spirit."
How many Americans understand and accept this basic nature of their own dignity? If the principle of self determination has any real meaning, in our own land, how can defenders of the State disparage and defame the sincere intentions and courageous actions of the remnants that seek to restore moral clarity?
The rules for those who seek redress here in America are quite different than those used in colonial India. In Demonstrating and Civil Disobedience: A Legal Guide for Activists, we find the legal rights and pitfalls that awaits those who challenge the forces of unaccountable authority. The prospects for respectful admiration and treatment from the enforcers of vested interest are bleak. The hostility to those who resist injustices by practicing active civil disobedience is rationalized; challenging authority means you are unpatriotic. When the example from the sub-continent is examined, most conclude that it was simply a clash of cultures. But when similar grievances are encountered domestically, the cries of internal subversion and foreign agitation are raised.
Most of the time, red herrings only serve the interests of the apologists as diversions away from the crucial and core issues. Bringing into question the legitimacy of the existing political order is always a dangerous proposition. So using civil disobedience as dynamic tactics, must be criminal--or so says the Department of Justice. That response is a given, but the tacit approval of the masses for State-sanctioned totalitarian dominance is the ultimate example of collective insanity. Gandhi would ask: Where is the self-sacrifice of America for her own noble virtues and claimed principles?
How will Americans respond? Gandhi sums up:
"You have to stand against the whole world although you may have to stand alone. You have to stare in the face the whole world although the world may look at you with blood-shot eyes. Do not fear. Trust the little voice residing within your heart."
"Forsake friends, wife and all; but testify to that for which you have lived and for which you have to die."
The natural rights of each person is universal, and embodies the sanctity to seek remedy and relief through redress. The effective means that encompass its form will vary accordingly by culture, political tradition and concentration of power. America has often been called a bastion of freedom. Dissent is the catalyst and civil disobedience is the mechanism. But how often does our country see the beacon of light that flows from the spirit of righteousness? Gandhi showed one way, will you seek your own?
discuss this column in the forum
July 10, 2002
SARTRE is a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic 'Public Service,' independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets and international business investments allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. Their daughter is a graduate of the University of London, and is working on an advance degree.
"Populism" best describes the approach to SARTRE's perspective on Politics. Realities suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of "Pragmatic Anarchism." Reforms will require an Existential approach. "Ideas Move the World," and SARTRE's intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America.
Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE's only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare . . . . Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elites, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality.
So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you who invites you to join in on this journey.
SARTRE's home page is at BATR (Breaking All The Rules).
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Sartre/sartre4.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878