COMING POLICE STATE

Fiedor Report On the News #305 ^ | 3-9-03 | Ron Paul

[forest]

[NOTE: This text was first published in the March 7, 1997 newsletter. It was an important message in 1997, but seems even more important today.]

Last week we gave Rep. Ron Paul's toll-free Legislative Update number (1-888-322-1414) and suggested that readers listen to his message "The Coming Police State." We were told by a lot of people that they missed it.

Originally, that message was part of a one hour speech Rep. Paul made on the floor of the House. And, thanks to Jeff in Michigan, we have the complete text. Below is the shortened version of Rep. Paul's speech recorded as the "Legislative Update:"

-----------------------------

Centralizing power and consistently expanding the role of the Government requires an army of bureaucrats and a taxing authority upon which a police state thrives. There are over 100 laws on the books permitting private property seizure without due process of law. We have made it easy to seize any property by absurdly claiming the property itself committed the crime. The RICO mentality relating to law enforcement permits even the casual bystander to suffer severely from the police state mentality.

The drug war hysteria and the war on gun ownership started by Roosevelt in 1934 have expanded Federal police power to the point that more than 10 percent of all of our police are Federal. The Constitution names but three Federal crimes, so where is the justification? Talk about swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have hovering over us daily the Federal police from the EPA, OSHA, FBI, CIA, DEA, EEOC, ADA, F&WL, INS, BATF, and worst of all, the IRS. Even criticizing the IRS makes me cringe that it might precipitate an audit. It seems that all administrations, to some degree, used the power of the agencies to reward or punish financial backers or political enemies.

So much [of] that had its origin in the 1930's, it was then that the FBI's role changed from friendly investigator helping local authorities to that of national police force.

We live in an age where the fear of an IRS registered letter bearing news of an audit surpasses the fear of a street mugging. The police are supposed to be our friend and the Federal Government the guarantor of our liberties. Ask the blacks in the inner city of Los Angeles if they trust the police and revere the FBI and the CIA. We should not have to cringe when a Federal agent appears at the door of our business. We should not even see them there.

A Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be protecting our right to our property, not confiscating it. Congress ought to protect our right to own a weapon of self-defense, not systematically and viciously attacking that right.

Congress ought to guarantee all voluntary association, not regulate and dictate every economic transaction. We should not allow Congress to give credence to inane politically correct rules generated by egalitarian misfits. Setting quotas ought to insult each of us.

We need no more centralized police efforts. We need no more wiretaps that have become epidemic in this last decade. We have had enough Wacos and Ruby Ridges.

-----------------------------

<http://www.house.gov/paul>

 END

[tpaine]

Apparently for those who care about such things, people will be free to carry around a complete book of perverts and consensual criminals in order to decide if they will do any business with them, or shun the shameless to death with shame.
-CJ-


You mean I am not free to carry about my FR shun list, cj?
Boy! -- I guess I'm lucky the mods haven't caught me with it yet. Maybe I better encode it.

[inquest]

Rather, these measures "evinced a design" (in the words of the Declaration) to oppress the people... By denying their right to make their own laws to govern their own society. Libertarians on FR also claim that our society has no rights.

I had assumed that CJ was referring more or less to the warnings issued by Dr. Paul at the beginning of this thread. I wasn't aware of him taking the position that society has no rights. Even if he had in other venues, that certainly wasn't what he was saying here.

And the fact remains that interrupting the legislative business of the colonies was only one of the concerns that the colonists had. If your goal is to establish an absolute dominon over society, you'll have to do plenty more than just tear down existing laws.

[Feiny]

People taste yummy! I like mine BBQ'd.

[HumanaeVitae]

I'm assuming the "Shun List" is a private enterprise, right? Private enterprises are never subject to corruption, of course...

[HumanaeVitae]

Libertarianism is nutty, fs. Think about it...you're ok with cannibalism?

[Feiny]

I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you being rational.

[Roscoe]

Constitutional libertarians

Oxymoronic term.

[Roscoe]

I'd be inclined to call it prophetic.

Lacking facts, you would naturally be so inclined.

[Roscoe]

The abortuaries could become true slaughterhouses.

[tpaine]

By denying their right to make their own laws to govern their own society. Libertarians on FR also claim that our society has no rights.
364 -roscoe- in de-nile again

Constitutional libertarians do ~not~ deny their right to make their own laws to govern their own society. -- Nor do libertarians on FR claim that our society has no rights. -- You are simply deliberately lying about FR's libertarians, and their principles, in order to bait & disrupt this forum.


Take it to the backroom, as requested roscoe.
-tpaine-


"Constitutional libertarians"

Oxymoronic term.
387 -roscoe- lies again


Your baiting, disruptive tactics are undisputed roscoe. Be ashamed.

[tpaine]

sick

[Roscoe]

sick

That would be the nature of a Libertarian hegemony.

[tpaine]

Cute, but still sick.

[sandydipper]

The authority NOT granted to the federal government IS reserved for the states. Says so in the constitution and Paul makes a lot of sense to me.

[Roscoe]

Libertarianism isn't cute. It more closely resembles a squalling brat.

[Washington_minuteman]

And so the thread degenerates into yet another cesspool of name-calling and sly enunendo.

May it Rest in Peace.

[FourtySeven]

Ehhh...kayyy.....I like liberarian's stance on the WOD; I think they have some valid gripes about search and seizure, unlawful entry...etc...BUT....

I think I've seen enough. This, is a bit extreme, imo. Umm...if a person's political ideology can't allow for the outlawing of cannibalism, then I think there's something wrong with that ideology.

And you can protest all you want artisan, but the consumption of human flesh by another human is, by all accepted rational defintions, "cannibalism". I don't care what's done in Alaska; maybe it should be stopped. Just because it hasn't been stopped already, does that make it "right"? So what if it doesn't harm someone. Beastiality doesn't "harm anyone" either, I guess that's ok too? (what am I even bothering asking for; if cannibalism is ok.........etc.....)

Besides, the whole argument to justify cannibalism is based on a commonly accepted defintion of "harm", is it not? What if I find a group of insane people who don't think it's "harmful" to kill someone themselves before eating them? How could you possibly convince an insane person that that's not right? You couldn't. That's where this system fails.

In this purely "no force or fraud" scenario you could easily have a group of people that could take it to insane extremes, and there'd be no intellectual way you could convince them otherwise. Then where would you be? I guess you'd have to use "force" against them to stop them wouldn't you?

But then, they'd cry "no force or fraud, no force or fraud! YOU are not a true libertarian!"

Damn those vicious cycles.

[tpaine]

A squalling brat? Odd.

-- It's pure Roscoe, 'projecting' again.

[Roscoe]

A squalling brat? Odd.

No, old.