Police state, ho!

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.”

Reality is,that there are NOT enough far righties,in this nation,to do anything except hand election after election,on a silver platter,to the Dems,into perpetuity,should they all go third party and divide the GOP.And therein lies another fallacy.There aren't enough righties,who would join only one coalition of fringers.

Fortunately,or unfortunately,depending upon one's viewpoint,Libertarians and Constitution Party people and Patsies and the Christian Right,and one issue voters and whomever else might go fringe,are so diametrically opposed with one another,that this is the fool's gold of fringe day dreaming.Then,there is the problem of a candidate.It would have to be someone who is charismatic and has gravitas.That's a HUGE order,which no one could fill.

And then there's money.Political campaigns cost BIG BUCKS!

We either stand together or get damned Dems.We must get HUGE majorities in both House and hold the White House.Then and ONLY then,can we work on dulling the RINOS,whilst realizing that certain parts of this nation will NEVER elect a staunch Conservative,even though they will support a moderate to RINO Republican.

At times I have a hard time telling dems and RINOs apart..and once the RINOs get in, it's incredibly hard to get them out.

I'd say it was worth having a dem in the White House for 4-8 years if in the process we could force the RINOs out of the GOP and return the GOP to its Conservative roots. After all, we've had liberal Presidents in the not too distant past. Some people foam at the mouth just thinking about a liberal President (you'd think that 2004 was the first election they were old enough to vote in), but if it meant getting control of the GOP, it'd be worth it (just watch, somebody will be unable to respond to that intelligently and will start making personal attacks against me, lol).

If we don't start acting now, we will have a police state, and it won't be the doing of the liberals. The RINOs are just a big of fans of big and intrusive government.

Nobody,in Maine,for example,is going to elect a faaaaaaar righty GOPer to either House.And that's just one state where that is a fact of life.And yes,even RINOS can bed useful,because we need a large majority in both Houses AND the White House!

Having Kerry in the White House,is NOT going to get you strong,staunch Conservatives elected to both Houses.What it WILL get you,are extreme lefty Supreme Court Justices and judges,not to mention losing the WoT,higher taxes,and a whole bunch of other horrible things.

Was it really worth having 8 years of Clinton? Some might say yes,considering that the GOPers were able to,on the third try and with a whole lot of help from wee Dickie Morris the toe sucker,get a welfare reform Bill passed and signed;not to mention the GOP ascendancy in both Houses.But was that worth Ruth Badder Ginsberg,selling/giving our secrets to the Chinese,pardoning terrorists and thieves,and 9/11,to name but a few of Clinton's legacies?

Some people seem to think that their daydreams could be come reality,with wishing.That's a fool's paradise and not reality.If onlies don't usually come to fruition and your newest wee wrinkle doesn't take into account that which dooms it to absolute failure and worse.

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.