Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police state, ho!
Razormouth.com ^ | 6/28/04 | John Whitehead

Posted on 06/29/2004 9:27:45 AM PDT by ksen

Police state, ho!
by John Whitehead
6/28/04

With each passing day, America is inching further down a slippery slope toward a police state. Soon, we’ll have picked up so much momentum that there will be no turning back.

Incredibly, not too many people appear concerned. Bombarded by media images and a mind-numbing entertainment culture, people seem to be so distracted that they do not even realize that our civil liberties are slowly and stealthily eroding away.

Yet the signs of a police state are everywhere. They have infiltrated all aspects of our lives, from the mundane to the downright oppressive. We were once a society that valued individual liberty and privacy. But in recent years we have turned into a culture that has quietly accepted surveillance cameras at traffic lights and in common public areas, drug-sniffing dogs in our children’s schools, national databases that track our finances and activities, sneak-and-peek searches of our homes without our knowledge or consent and anti-terrorism laws that turn average Americans into suspected criminals.

In our post-9/11 world, government officials have effectively used terror and fear to subdue any public resistance to legislation like the Patriot Act, which embodies the heavy-handed empowering of government intrusion into our lives. Our police officers have become armed militias, instead of the civilian peacekeepers they were intended to be. Now, even average citizens—those that should have nothing to fear or worry about—are becoming unwitting targets of a government seemingly at war with its own people. Understandably, fear and paranoia rule the day.

Now with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, we have reached yet another milepost on our journey to a police state. A majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. Nineteen other states already have similar laws on their books. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The case arose after Larry D. Hiibel, a Nevada cattle rancher, was arrested and convicted on a misdemeanor after refusing to tell his name or show identification to a sheriff's deputy. By requiring individuals to identify themselves on pain of arrest, this ruling turns Americans innocent of any wrongdoing into immediate suspects. Indeed, it is hard to ignore the similarity to the police states found in countries like China and North Korea. It can only be a matter of time before we are required to carry identification at all times. With all the talk of digital chips and national IDs, it may not even be so far-fetched to think that someday our slightest movements will be tracked by government satellites.

We are fast becoming the police state that Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx.) warned against in his June 2002 address to the House of Representatives. His words painted a chilling portrait of a nation willingly allowing itself to be monitored, tracked, fingerprinted and controlled. “Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come.”

“It’s the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability,” cautioned Paul, “and if there are reservations about what we’re doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.”

Although the alarm has been sounded repeatedly from critics on all sides of the political spectrum, is anyone listening? If they were, every piece of legislation that tightens the government’s stronghold on American citizens would be considered an affront to freedom. And every court decision that weakens the right of each American to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures would be considered an attack against individual liberty.

Politicians love to boast about how far we’ve come since 1776. Yet sadly, we seem to have lost the love of freedom that laid the groundwork for the American Revolution. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 have further confused the situation. In fact, it is common to hear both our elected officials and citizens state rather bluntly that it’s time to relinquish some of our freedoms in order to feel more secure.

This kind of sentiment was completely foreign to those who founded this country. Obviously, those who fought the arduous battles to preserve our freedom had a different concept of what a society should be and what it meant to be a good citizen.

Vested with the deep-seated belief that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, those who founded America took a courageous stand for their right to freely pursue life, liberty and happiness. And when their outcries were ignored by Great Britain, they declared that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.” This led to the drafting of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It has been said that on a sunny day in Philadelphia in 1787, just after the Constitutional Convention had finished its work, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and asked, “Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?” “A Republic, madam,” Franklin quickly answered. “If you can keep it.”

I only hope that we have the wisdom and the courage to keep it.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: blahblahblah; dopeheads; iamamoron; itsallaboutdope; johnwhitehead
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-263 next last
To: ActionNewsBill
More word games from the master baiter.

Typical response when you cannot debate the issues.

101 posted on 06/29/2004 10:51:40 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill

See #100


102 posted on 06/29/2004 10:52:38 AM PDT by Protagoras (government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." ...Ronald Reagan, 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Please be specific and show HOW I went off topic or mentioned drugs.


103 posted on 06/29/2004 10:52:49 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA

Your post was reposted. Now back to your little padded room.


104 posted on 06/29/2004 10:54:15 AM PDT by Protagoras (government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." ...Ronald Reagan, 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Reposting my post does not show how I was off topic or talked about drugs. Please be specific!


105 posted on 06/29/2004 10:56:01 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
"If you get stopped by a cop while driving your car, you are not only required to give him your name, but your driver's license. This is nothing new - old Larry was just being a nutcase."

Please review the facts of the case. For one thing, he didn't get 'stopped', the vehicle was parked on the side of the road when the officer arrived. For another, he hadn't been driving it - his daughter had. She was still sitting in the driver seat when the officer arrived. Thirdly, he wasn't even in the vehicle when the officer arrived - he was standing on soil, completely outside the vehicle.

The ruling allowed that a police officer may stop you while you're walking down to your friend's house and require that you either give your name or go to jail. Step two is going to be requiring that you show proof of identity on the spot or go to jail. 'Larry' was not being a nutcase - he was practicing his right to remain silent. Recall from the standard Miranda warning - "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say, can, and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."
106 posted on 06/29/2004 10:56:32 AM PDT by NJ_gent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Please stay on topic and stop mentioning drugs.


107 posted on 06/29/2004 10:57:19 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dog Anchor

We heard you twice the first time.


108 posted on 06/29/2004 10:57:25 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Please be specific and show HOW I went off topic or mentioned drugs.

Doesn't look good for the medical marijuana scam case coming forward.

mar·i·jua·na also mar·i·hua·na ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mr-wän)

n.

The cannabis plant.

A preparation made from the dried flower clusters and leaves of the cannabis plant, usually smoked or eaten to induce euphoria.

You can't possibly be this freaking dense, or are you playing Clintonian word games with me?

I guess it depends on the definition of "is".

I'm finished replying to you, you childish oaf!

109 posted on 06/29/2004 10:58:44 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Get me 75 and I'll guarantee you the Federal Budget shrinks in half over the next ten years, and our taxes along with it.

Not likely. If you were given 75 Libertarian senators, none would be elected to a second term.

Hey cinFLA, 'splain to me what is wrong with a government half the size it is today? And do you know what people who want that used to be called? REPUBLICANS.

110 posted on 06/29/2004 11:00:46 AM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill

If FReeping was a true blood sport, at this point the hounds would be called off, and a merciful shot would ring out.


111 posted on 06/29/2004 11:02:52 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Hey cinFLA, 'splain to me what is wrong with a government half the size it is today? And do you know what people who want that used to be called? REPUBLICANS.

Ouch! LOL!

112 posted on 06/29/2004 11:04:49 AM PDT by ksen (Free the GRPL 3! (Woody, CaRepubGal, Wrigley))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill

No. I referred to a USSC case that was in today's headlines. It is related to Libertarian issues and the 9thCC. Nowhere did I talk about drugs.


113 posted on 06/29/2004 11:05:09 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ksen
"With each passing day, America is inching further down a slippery slope toward a police state. Soon, we’ll have picked up so much momentum that there will be no turning back."

That's why we have the 2nd Amendment! If enough people have the will to stop it, then the Police State will never happen.

114 posted on 06/29/2004 11:06:03 AM PDT by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes; cinFLA
If FReeping was a true blood sport, at this point the hounds would be called off, and a merciful shot would ring out.

I'm starting to feel sorry for the old coot.

I think he has some serious reading comprehension problems.

Or maybe the sun is over the yardarm where he lives.

115 posted on 06/29/2004 11:07:13 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Hey cinFLA, 'splain to me what is wrong with a government half the size it is today?

Huh?

116 posted on 06/29/2004 11:07:23 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Nowhere did I talk about drugs.

Keep telling yourself that.

More's the pity.

117 posted on 06/29/2004 11:08:19 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Police state, ho!

Quit calling me names!
118 posted on 06/29/2004 11:08:49 AM PDT by Xenalyte (No one will be sitting in sackcloth and ashes wailing, "Oh, if only we had listened to Art Bell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill

Just because you are sick that the USSC is overturned your socialist 9th CC twice last week is no excuse for your denying the facts.


119 posted on 06/29/2004 11:09:50 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA; eno_
Hey cinFLA, 'splain to me what is wrong with a government half the size it is today?

Huh?

Bwahahaha!!

120 posted on 06/29/2004 11:10:27 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-263 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson