The Police State Is Right Here, Right Now

The Police State Is Right Here, Right Now

by Carolyn Baker

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air-however slight-lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.

~Justice William O. Douglas~



In April, 2007 I was pleasantly surprised to find Naomi Wolf’s article, “Fascist America, in 10 easy steps” posted in several places online. I have been a fan of Wolf for many years, greatly appreciating her works and especially her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth. I had been looking for a list-or more specifically, an encyclopedia of the losses of civil liberties in the United States that might clarify for my history students the extent to which America has become a fascist empire. Wolf’s “10 Easy Steps” was perfect, but her just-published book, The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot, from which the 10 easy steps was compiled, offers an even fuller picture-a succinct and engaging explanation of how our civil liberties have been hijacked in the past decade. It is the most poignant, powerful, genuinely patriotic piece of literature I have encountered since Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. No wonder then, that the book’s cover greatly resembles that 46-page tract by Paine written in 1775-as well it should.



Wolf also emphasizes that America has flirted with fascism openly in the 1930s when numerous corporations and robber barons helped finance Hitler and when as Edwin Black notes in IBM And The Holocaust, some American corporations assisted the Nazi regime in carrying out its “final solution” to the “Jewish problem.” In fact, several of these corporate tycoons attempted to stage a coup d’ etat to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and restructure the American government under fascist control. A thorough investigation of American politics and society from the end of the Civil War until the present moment reveals, as I have carefully traced in my book U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn’t Tell You, that much of recent American history is replete with a preference on the part of corporations and the politicians they own for an economic and political system on the far right end of the spectrum. In fact, resistance to fascism in the United States has been an arduous and daunting struggle for those who have been able to understand and oppose the appeal that fascism has to the corporatocracy, and in fact, take seriously Mussolini’s fundamental definition of fascism: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”



In the “10 easy steps” outlined by Wolf, countries move from open to closed and repressive societies by devolving past certain markers, and Wolf makes a powerful case for the way in which the United States is following a similar pattern without any significant deviation. In each instance she compares and contrasts how America’s adherence to the pattern compares or contrasts with the pattern in pre-World War II Germany. The 10 steps are:

-Invoking an external and internal threat
-Establishing secret prisons
-Developing a paramilitary force
-Surveiling ordinary citizens
-Infiltrating citizens’ groups
-Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
-Targeting key individuals
-Restricting the press
-Casting criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
-Subverting the rule of law



As noted in the quote from Justice Douglas above, the fascist shift is a protracted process; it never happens overnight, and in U.S. History Uncensored, I offer an historical narrative describing exactly how we have arrived where we are-at “the end of America”. Some aspects of the process were generated before the U.S. Civil War, but our recent history is nothing less than the story of the acceleration of the fascist agenda and the death of the Republic.



What we will not have is liberty.

We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy - the ‘Oh gosh how awful!’ kind of time. It is time to take to the streets. It is time to confront those committing crimes against the Constitution. The window has now dropped several precipitous inches and once it is closed there is no opening it without great and sorrowful upheaval.



I repeat: the police state is right here, right now!

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/the-police-state-is-right-here-right-now-by-carolyn-baker/

Massive Sweep Creates Havoc for Workers’ Families



Massive Sweep Creates Havoc for Workers’ Families
by Alyssa Giachino

NEW YORK - Families are still scrambling to get information about their loved ones a week after U.S. immigration agents arrested over 1,000 workers at meatpacking plants in six states in a massive operation targeting people working with false documents.

"A lot of people still don’t know where they are,” Olivia Figueroa, who runs a small grocery store in Worthington, Minnesota, told IPS. Although Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a hotline for family members to inquire about detainees, Figueroa said the information given is often contradictory.

Figueroa’s husband works at the Swift pork plant in Worthington, and he says production lines are slow because of missing employees. Figueroa said there are still workers who haven’t reported to the plant because they are afraid of another raid.

On Nov. 12, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents swept in on Swift & Co. meat processing plants in Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Iowa and Minnesota. Production lines stopped as thousands of workers were asked to provide proof of legal residency or citizenship. ICE said the raid was part of an investigation into a “massive identity theft scheme that has victimised hundreds of U.S. citizens”.

Within hours, ICE had arrested 1,282 workers on administrative immigration violations. Thus far, 144 people have been criminally charged for identity theft as well as other crimes such as illegal reentry to the United States.

The raids have reignited the debates about immigration reform that dominated the political landscape earlier in the year, but did not result in Congressional action.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/20/5340/

--------------------------------------------
H.R.1955
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

HR 1955 RFS
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1955
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 24, 2007
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

AN ACT
To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.
`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.
`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.
`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
`8] Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.
`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.
`(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:
`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.
`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--
`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;
`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and
`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.
`(c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom--
`(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States;
`(2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary;
`(3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;
`(4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;
`(5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
`(6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;
`(7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
`8] one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
`(9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
`(10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
`(d) Chair and Vice Chair- The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.
`(e) Qualifications- Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.
`(f) Deadline for Appointment- All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.
`(g) Quorum and Meetings- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.
`(h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission- Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.
`(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.
`(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.
`(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.
`(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.
`(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies-
`(1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission's functions.
`(2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.
`(k) Postal Services- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.
`(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
`(m) Public Meetings-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate.
`(2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).
`(n) Staff of Commission-
`(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION- The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.
`(2) STAFF EXPERTISE- Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).
`(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
`(B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.
`(4) DETAILEES- Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.
`(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES- The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
`(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES- The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.
`(o) Commission Personnel Matters-
`(1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS- Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.
`(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.
`(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES- Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.
`(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS- A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.
`(5) VACANCIES- A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
`(p) Security Clearances- The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.
`(q) Reports-
`(1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.
`(2) INTERIM REPORTS- The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress--
`(A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on--
`(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and
`(ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and
`(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.
`(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS- Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.
`(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.
`(r) Availability of Funding- Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.
`(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Which sharpens the question of whether or not we really have any voice in this country...does passage of such resolutions represent the people...were the majority of Americans even aware that such measures were being considered in our Congress and were calls to our reps answered by honest discussion or brushed off by their flunkies. And most disturbing of all, were those of us who did contact government representatives to urge defeat of this bill conveniently registered as "radicals" in the records of their phone-base... "extremists" with "political or social objectives" to be added to some FBI list for future reference.

When government attacks on Internet boards such as this one begin to happen, for promoting or just allowing radical opinions, will people realize that they have been duped or will they continue to bicker amongst themselves over which "candidate" or which "party" better represents the will of the people?

The fact is that democracy is and always has been a sham, just as "freedom and liberty" do not exist but under the rubric of property and the freedom and liberty to exploit for the gain of property.

Yours is an Excellent post. A cold splash of the truth too many are unwilling to countenance.

Read this article and comments from Brits in The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2212990,00.html

Senate bars bill to restore detainee rights
Wed Sep 19, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate voted on Wednesday against considering a measure to give Guantanamo detainees and other foreigners the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. courts.

The legislation needed 60 votes to be considered by lawmakers in the Senate, narrowly controlled by Democrats; it received only 56, with 43 voting against the effort to roll back a key element of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.

The measure would have granted foreign terrorism suspects the right of habeas corpus, Latin for "you have the body," which prevents the government from locking people up without review by a court.

Congress last year eliminated this right for non-U.S. citizens labeled "enemy combatants" by the government. The Bush administration said this was necessary to prevent them from being set free and attacking Americans.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1924593620070919

Published on Friday, March 2, 2001 in the New York Times
'Active Denial System'
Pentagon Unveils Plans for a New Crowd-Dispersal Weapon
by James Dao

WASHINGTON, March 1 — The Pentagon today unveiled what some military officials hope will become the rubber bullet of the 21st century: a weapon that uses electromagnetic waves to disperse crowds without killing, maiming or, military officials say, even injuring anyone slightly.
Known in Pentagon patois as an "active denial system," the weapon is the fruit of 10 years of research and is intended to help American soldiers in the quasi-military roles they have increasingly been asked to play as peacekeepers or police in places like Kosovo and Ethiopia.

As envisioned by its Pentagon designers, the weapon would fire bursts of electromagnetic energy capable of causing burning sensations on the skin of people standing as far as 700 yards away — without actually burning them, officials said.

"It's not designed to burn," Col. George P. Fenton of the Marine Corps, director of the Department of Defense's Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program in Quantico, Va., said at a news conference today. "It's a heat-induced sensation."

Asked if the weapon was simply a militarized form of a microwave oven, Colonel Fenton said no. He said the new system fires waves that are shorter and at higher frequencies than microwaves. That means, he said, that while the waves could penetrate clothing, they would barely enter the skin, reaching a depth of only one sixty-fourth of an inch.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0302-01.htm

VMADS bears the burden of a strong connection to riot control, a traditionally controversial topic in the American psyche. The idea that this artifact would do the work of riot control is readily apparent, as these sources affirm:
"You may be surprised one day to see VMADS -- or a civilian law-enforcement version of the weapon -- on a city street near you. VMADS and its "non-lethal" kin are being hyped by the Pentagon as "crowd dispersal" devices, which makes them a handy tool for quelling civil unrest, without the fuss and muss of rubber bullets and tear gas." -- "Killing Me Softly"
" is a revolutionary new weapon, a controversial heat-ray destined to change the face of conflict by dispersing mobs, protecting military bases and sorting friend from foe without inflicting injuries." -- "Safety fears as US demonstrates crowd control heat-ray weapon"
The DOD poses it as a combat weapon in the civilian-rich urban battlefield, which would imply that its use would be restricted to warzones like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, many see it as a next-gen riot control weapon for domestic riots, which introduces a host of new issues.

The reason it is so heavily considered exclusively a riot control weapon is that it may easily be rendered ineffective in a true combat situation; GlobalSecurity.org speculates that "Countermeasures against the weapon could be quite straightforward — for example covering up the body with thick clothes or carrying a metallic sheet — or even a trash can lid — as a shield or reflector. Also unclear is how the active-denial technology would work in rainy, foggy or sea-spray conditions where the beam's energy could be absorbed by water in the atmosphere" . Simply by covering oneself in reflective material, the weapons effects are negated. The implication here is that its sole purpose is not for combat, but in fact for general riot control, and that its deployment in Iraq is simply a trial run for deployment in the U.S. This idea has the following connections:
"Testing" VMADS on Iraqis before deployment on U.S. riots is unethical, treating Iraqis as guinea pigs
As a weapon for riot control, its use is a threat to freedom of speech and assembly
Without long-term effects, its use could fill a desperate need in riot control, bridging the gap between shouting and shooting

http://foresight.stanford.edu:3455/TenThings/591

...where there's a discussion about the latest assault on their liberties:

There are many things we can do to thwart this awful assault on our freedoms.

1. Stop traveling overseas, if you can. And go to your local travel agent and tell them why you are not going overseas this year. Hurt their income and they will see they must join the boycott.
2. Refuse to fill in the form. Write across it in big letters, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. So what if they refuse to let you travel?
3. Write to your MPs. Not just once, but many times. Write to Gordon Brown too, and swap No 10 with mail. Take it there in sacks if you have to. Dump it on the footpaths. Dump it in front of their official cars. Dump it in front of your MP's home. Make it as visible as possible. Get as many people in your neighborhood as possible to join you.
4. Make handmade signs and put them everywhere...WE WILL NOT GIVE YOU OUR PRIVATE INFORMATION!
5. Get out on the streets and demonstrate. Make your voice heard. Why don't we all agree on a date and then get out on the streets? Will someone organize this, please?
6. Go to international airports, train stations, bus stations, boat harbours and demonstrate. Make our outrage as VISIBLE as possible.
7. Go up to surveillance cameras and make faces up close to the lens. Block their vision so the watchers can't see anything. Do this whenever you can.

There are lots of things we can do to stop them. Just use your imagination.

DO NOT sit here like a dumb sheep and accept this! It's time to stop the constant erosion of our freedom.

I think if we aren't careful it might lead to that, but I wouldn't call it one right now. I think to do so would be disingenuous to those people who do indeed live in a police state. It is like comparing womens rights here to those in Saudi Arabia. Yes, we still must continue the fight for equal rights, but we don't go through the tiniest bit of what those women have to tolerate.

"It’s been a police state for a long time. Here in NYC when I saw the troops at Grand Central Station after 9/11 and still see them; the masked storm trooper-garbed cops with huge rifles standing guard protecting Wall Street during the next few years I worked in the financial district and seeing…people stop seeing how insane this was because it had become the “new normal”…that’s when I knew the country I grew up in didn’t exist anymore.

It’s a sad thing that ten years ago things I saw going on were considered “tin foil hat” because no one would believe that there was a pattern to it and that it was a dark one. Now that much of that stuff is institutionalized and everywhere, I’m a nut because it’s happened and happening and people are too afraid to deal with what that means, not only about where we live and the times we live in, but also about the personal responsibilities each of us have in times like these.

Mass protests and marches and street confrontation is a recipe for further repression…it feeds right into the justifications of the state for its coercion and violence.

The way begins with facing the darkness, mourning it, then dropping the fear and doing what humans do best when they allow themselves their humanity. Connecting with each other, helping each other. Get to know your neighbors, if you don’t already. Get used to helping and looking out for each other and building community…share your skills and abilities with each other so you can slowly grow independent and spread your love and your wisdom. That might be the last and best way to start to outlast the madmen (and scattered madwomen) running things from within the corporate boardrooms and the headquarters of the fascist republican and vichy democratic parties."

key infrastructure means we now live in a police state? BWAHHHH!

Would they be allowed, or would you see people getting tasered and thrown in jail?

The fact of the matter is that for all intents and purposes, the Constitution has been shredded and is in the landfill as we speak.

People are in denial about it because everything "seems" the same.

Except, that it's not.

When people have to ask "permission" to travel, that's it-it's over.

Bye Bye United States of America & The Constitution.

I believe we still have time to change things before we cross the point of no return. We may be heading towards it, but I believe there is still time to stop and back up. I have not yet given up.

Crime victims are treated like THEY are the problem (I have experienced this firsthand more than once).

You are entitled to your view. I simply see it differently.

I believe we could become one if things continue to erode. I do not believe we are there yet. Not what I would define as a Police State. I feel words have real meaning and to use certain phrases to make things more dramatic then they are cheapens the meanings.

I have never met an officer who considers the general public as enemies. I am sure there are asshats out there, but broadbrushing the very people who work to try and keep us safe is unfair. They live in the same world as everyone else when the uniform is off.

First, if we define heroism by the extent to which one puts his life on the line in the course of his work -- and apparently that's the operative definition nowadays -- then there is nothing all that heroic about policing. According to the Department of Labor, the on-the-job fatality rate for police is lower than that for gardeners, electricians, truck drivers, garbage collectors, construction workers, airline pilots, timber cutters, and commercial fisherman. In fact, fishermen have an occupational fatality rate that is fifteen times higher than that for cops, but rarely do we hear those who provide us with an endless supply of mahi-mahi described as heroes.

An average of 66 police officers per year were killed feloniously during the 1990s, with the number falling to only 42 in 1999. As Marie De Santis, Director of the Women's Justice Center explains, the flawed presentation of cops as embattled heroes is not only inaccurate, but also dangerous: "By cultivating a hyper-inflated myth of heroes sacrificing their lives for you, police have created a shield of public veneration to defend against criticism of any misdeed. Who then can blame police for building arsenals against the citizens, for firing at first blink, for medieval codes of silence?"

De Santis further notes that the notion of police as constantly endangered has other deleterious effects. It reinforces macho attitudes and behavior on the force, thereby limiting the presence of women in policing. And studies have determined that the male dominance of policing limits the effectiveness of law enforcement in dealing with domestic violence and general violence against women, which accounts for roughly a third of all police calls.

Secondly, there is nothing inherently noble about police work. After all, would most Americans think highly of law enforcement officers in North Korea? Or Iraq? Of course not. What makes policing noble is always and only the validity of the system for which officers are working. And while I am hardly analogizing the U.S. justice system to that of North Korea, Iraq, or any other authoritarian nation, the point is still valid. If the system is rife with inequality and injustice, then those whose job it is to uphold that system are part of the problem, just as much as they may be part of the "solution" to something like crime. By presenting police officers as inherently special and vital bulwarks against chaos, pro-cop ideologues paper over ongoing injustices in the system, making it more difficult to see and ultimately fix those problems.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/story/12166/?page=entire

Do you assert that we don't have police brutality because you have not experienced it, personally?

"First, they came for the Socialists...."

Good Germans had the same attitude as yours, that they were a civilized nation and there were just a few rogue elements, but nothing that would rise to the level of a police state ... until it was too late to do anything about it.

Hope is good, unless it is based on simple denial.

work to try and keep us safe.

Even though ours is hardly the type of populace that riots because a poet writes it.

We allow the RW to harass the journalist who (horrors) prints the names of a month's worth of Iraqi service people killed in action.

We deny Teddy Kennedy the right to get on a plane he needs to catch.

We force people to dump the drinks they were going to bring aboard an airplane - even if the drinks are for children or infants.

And yes, maybe to day we are not (Strictly speaking) a police state.

But all the above means is that tomorrow when it is for real, we waited too long.

We'll be detained and it will be too late.

We are so far into it and the average American
does not see it.

k and r

Kick and Nom

the only chance we have is for all Americans to come together for our civil rights. We have to recognize all of the divisive ploys being used to prevent us from unifying into one group: Racial, sexual orientation, left and right infighting, pseudo news and infotainment---I hope there are enough awake people that know this.
Yes, Solidarity.

Will it stop the dirty filthy smokers? Smokers smoke in front of children! Something has to be done...

The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here

18th March 07 - Robert Higgs, The Independent Institute

When President George W. Bush presented his budget proposals recently for the fiscal year 2008, he emphasized that the nation’s security is his highest priority, and he backed up that declaration by proposing that the Pentagon’s outlays be increased by more than 6 percent beyond its estimated outlays for fiscal 2007, to a total of more than $583 billion. Although many Americans regard this enormous sum as excessive, hardly anyone appreciates that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense. Indeed, it is roughly almost twice as large.

In the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September, the Pentagon spent $499.4 billion. Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons programs, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized.

<snip>

Although I have arrived at my conclusions honestly and carefully, I may have left out items that should have been included—the federal budget is a gargantuan, complex, and confusing collection of documents. If I have done so, however, the left-out items are not likely to be relatively large ones. (I have deliberately ignored some minor items, such as the outlays of the Selective Service System and the National Defense Stockpile and the Treasury’s program to block financial flows to terrorists.) Therefore, I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. We may overstate the truth, but if so, we’ll not do so by much.

For now, however, the conclusion seems inescapable: the government is currently spending at the rate of approximately $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes. Moreover, even if I have erred in my calculations and overstated the correct amount somewhat, the total will certainly reach this astonishing sum very soon, given all the plans and programs already set in motion.

National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2006
(billions of dollars)
Department of Defense 499.4
Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup) 16.6
Department of State 25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs 69.8
Department of Homeland Security 69.1
Department of Justice (1/3 of FBI) 1.9
Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund) 38.5
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total) 7.6
Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays 206.7
Total 934.9
Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970.

http://www.stwr.net/content/view/1701/37/

Taking the points you have made here to my friends and neighbors...build the community base and hunker down for the onslaught, by pointing out and exposing acts of oppression and standing up, en masse, whenever it occurs.

Three people died this week at the hands of tasering police departments...one for playing his car stereo too loud. When our government has everything in place to beat down any and all dissent, developed and legalized draconian weapons specifically authorized to STOP anyone from a distance, our struggle becomes a life and death one. The police state prepares for us, what are we doing to organize against it?

Maybe soon, you will see this on the cover of Newsweek.

:kick:

Learn from the past and take heed!

Good to have you here. Very good indeed.

Great screen name! :thumbsup:

IN THE U S LAST YEAR