Monday, September 6, 2010

Labor Day 2010

Like most workers who get paid holidays, I'm enjoying a day off.  I realize this doesn't apply to those who are working in hospitals, police cruisers, or other jobs that simply must be manned 24/7/365, and I thank you.  Long ago and far away, I worked as an ER nurse's aide; I understand.  It rained all afternoon, but the pork butts were smoked yesterday, so it was a lazy day here at the castle. 

Back on topic, Denninger (whom I probably link to more than anyone) has posted a must read essay, called "Why Do You Labor?"

Denninger does a good job of addressing the corruption in the highest levels of the government/banking cabal, and it got me thinking.  Is the US a police state?  What's your definition of a police state?  Wikipedia might be only occasionally useful, but they are probably worthwhile for simple definitions. 
The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[1]
Is there totalitarianism?  How about when large percentages of voters oppose government healthcare or car company bailouts, and they do it anyway - then insist you be "reeducated" about how wonderful it is?  How about when the government breaks all the rules of transactions for corporate bonds and  gets away with it? 

Is there social control?  How about when the Department of Justice, ordered by the Attorney General of the United States, decides to not prosecute blatantly criminal actions based solely on whether the offenders are a preferred minority?  (are we not all a minority, depending on how far down in our classifications we want to go?)

Is your mobility restricted?  Ever been stopped at random by police, or because you met some profile?  Around here, a local sheriff used to fund his department by stopping cars and checking for cash.  If you have cash, you must be a drug dealer, therefore it's their money to seize.  The only arguments appeared to be whether they were profiling minorities.  The argument that we should have a right to carry cash if we so want seems to have never been considered.    

Is your freedom to express political or other views restricted?  How about if the Speaker of the House, the third person in the line of succession should the President and Vice President be killed or incapacitated, thinks you should be investigated if you suggest a mosque should not be built at ground zero - in other words, use your first amendment rights?   
"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up..."
How about when the FCC's "Diversity Czar" says
" focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Are you subject to police monitoring?  Police UAVs are hot-selling surveillance item. When questioned about FAA laws that forbid overflying residential areas at less than 500 feet, a local officer responded they were exempt because they were LEOs.  Have you been a victim of a botched SWAT raid?  Perhaps a wrong address, or the result of an informant saying anything to get some credits, and had your dog shot?  Perhaps the BATF raided you and, unable to find anything wrong, stomped on your kitten and killed it? (or here )   
In a case which is widely known among the gun community, but which has been ignored by the national press, except for the Washington Times, the home of gun show promoters Harry and Theresa Lamplugh was raided by BATF in 1994. At least fifteen BATF agents, armed with machine guns, burst into the Lamplugh's home one morning. Mr. Lamplugh asked the men, most of whom were not wearing uniforms, if they had a warrant. "Shut the f___ up mother f___er; do you want more trouble than you already have?" they responded, sticking a machine gun in his face.

Over the next six and half hours, BATF agents demolished the home, refused to let the Lamplughs get dressed, held a pizza party, killed three house cats (including a Manx kitten which was stomped to death), scattered Mr. Lamplugh's cancer pills all over the floor, and carted off over eighteen thousand dollars worth of the Lamplughs' property, plus their medical records. Nearly a year later, the government has neither filed any criminal charges, nor returned any property, even the medical records. (119)

Denninger's point is that the only way to shut down the corrupt, emerging police state is to starve the beast.  He is, in effect, calling for a national strike.  He says,
Why do you willingly get up and make effort to feed your family and better yourself when literally trillions of your money are lavished on these enterprises by a band of 545 crooks in Washington DC who have all, each and every one of them, personally enabled, permitted and endorsed these scams?

I speak specifically of:
435 Representatives in Congress
100 Senators
1 President
9 Supreme Court Justices
My definition of a police state has always been a bit nebulous.  Essentially everything is illegal, and whether you live or die is up to the police officer you are in contact with. After thinking about these examples, I have to conclude, if we aren't a police state, "I can see it from my porch". 

No comments:

Post a Comment