Category: Pat’s Opinions

Reposted from February 26, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Agenda — Part Nine: Synchronize and fully integrate local law enforcement with state Federal and private contract military forces. Prepare collection/relocation/internment contingencies, systems & personnel.

There is a long-standing tradition in the United States of separating police and military powers. This practice stems in part from Reconstruction (1865-77), the bitter post-Civil War experience of martial law when victorious Northern troops occupied the South.

After Reconstruction, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. While the roots of this federal law are controversial, the law is generally recognized as limiting the power of the U.S. military to interfere with civilian law enforcement.

The use of military forces under Posse Comitatus remained relatively static until the events of September 11, 2001 after which U.S. military surplus equipment was given to civilian law enforcement agencies under the Department of Defense (DoD) 1033 Program.

Some dispersals of equipment seem to reflect poor decision making. For example:

• The Winthrop Harbor, Illinois, Police Department, policing a village of approximately 6,700 residents, has received 10 helicopters, a mine-resistant armored vehicle and two Humvees, as well as other equipment.

• The Oxford, Alabama, Police Department, policing 22,000 residents, has received nine Humvees, two armored vehicles, a general purpose truck and other equipment.

The primary argument in favor of police militarization is that law enforcement agencies face increasingly sophisticated threats from criminal gangs and terrorists.

Arguments against police militarization center on the marginalization of the Posse Comitatus Act and the appearance of police as members of the military. Unlike military forces that exist to defeat the enemies of the United States in combat, the role of the police in America is to protect and serve their communities.

Having police in military camouflage, carrying heavy military weapons and patrolling in armored or other military vehicles gives  the appearance of an armed police confrontation. That public image belies the traditional image of police as servants of the community.

Civilian police referring to their fellow citizens as “civilians” is an example of how police militarization has crept into our society. For police officers to refer to their fellow community members as civilians promotes a “we – they” type of relationship in which the police are separate from the community.

Look at it for a moment from the cops’ point of view.

When someone calls 911 for police service, there is a tacit admission by the caller that the situation at hand has deteriorated beyond his or her control, and police are needed in order to bring the situation back under control. There is the unstated assumption that the officer has going into each situation — not that a social equilibrium needs to be maintained, but that a situation needs to be quickly and efficiently brought back under control.

Further than this, when he gets to the scene of many to most of these 911 calls, he encounters people who seek to frustrate his endeavors. He talks to witnesses who lie in circles about not seeing anything. He talks to suspects who lie about where they’d just been or what they were just doing. He talks to drunk people who can’t coordinate themselves and won’t remember what was said in ten minutes’ time. He talks to addicts who try to conceal the fact that they’re high even though involuntary tics have consumed their body. He talks to grade school kids and teenagers who have been conditioned to mistrust or despise police. He talks to people who lie about their identity because they have warrants or because they just want to frustrate him. He talks to people who act nervous and take too long to answer simple questions, raising his suspicions. He talks to people who have drugs, guns, knives, and any manner of other contraband hidden in their residence, in their vehicle, or on their person.

Now consider that the officer is doing this many times per shift — 10, 20, maybe more — encounters every day. He will quickly learn that, in order to get anything accomplished with these liars and obstructionists, he is going to have to employ tactics that in any other field would be unacceptable. He is going to have to be blunt, brusque and curt. He’s going to have to call bluffs and smokescreens and BS. He’s going to have to interrupt rambling, circular explanations. He’s going to have to look people in the eye and say, “We both know that you’re lying to me right now.”

Combine a siege police mentality with the transformation of  police from “Peace officers” to “Law Enforcement” officers add military weapons and tactics into the mix and you have a volatile and explosive situation. Enter “Special Weapons and Tactics, S.W.A.T.

Initially S.W.A.T. was an elite force reserved for uniquely dangerous incidents, such as active shooters, hostage situations, or large-scale disturbances.

While SWAT isn’t the only indicator that the militarization of American policing is increasing, it is the most recognizable. The proliferation of SWAT teams across the country and their paramilitary tactics have spread a violent form of policing designed for the extraordinary but in these years made ordinary.

As the number of SWAT teams has grown nationwide, so have the raids. Every year now, there are approximately 50,000 SWAT raids in the United States. In other words, roughly 137 times a day a SWAT team assaults a home and plunges its inhabitants and the surrounding community into terror.

Nearly 80 percent of all SWAT raids reviewed between 2011 and 2012 were deployed to execute a search warrant.

Pause here and consider that these violent home invasions are routinely used against people who are only suspected of a crime. Up-armored paramilitary teams now regularly bash down doors in search of evidence of a possible crime. In other words, police departments increasingly choose a tactic that often results in injury and property damage as its first option, not the one of last resort. In more than 60 percent of the raids  investigated, SWAT members rammed down doors in search of possible drugs, not to save a hostage, respond to a barricade situation, or neutralize an active shooter.

The military mentality and equipment associated with SWAT operations are no longer confined to those elite units. Increasingly, they’re permeating all forms of policing. Recruit training favors a stress-based regimen that’s modeled on military boot camp rather than on the more relaxed academic  police departments previously employed. The result is young officers who believe policing is about kicking ass rather than working with the community to make neighborhoods safer.

This authoritarian streak runs counter to the core philosophy used to dominate American thinking: community policing, and its emphasis is on a mission of “keeping the peace” by creating and maintaining partnerships of trust with and in the communities served.

Police across America are being trained in a way that emphasizes force and aggression.

The more militaristic look of the BDUs, (Battle Dress Uniforms),much like what is seen in news stories of our military in war zones, gives rise to the notion of our police being an occupying force in some neighborhoods, instead of trusted community protectors.

Why is this dangerous to our Constitutional freedoms?

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) may be an obscure agency within the Department of Defense, but through the 1033 program, which it oversees, it’s one of the core enablers of American policing’s excessive militarization. Beginning in 1990, Congress authorized the Pentagon to transfer its surplus property free of charge to federal, state, and local police departments to wage the war on drugs. In 1997, Congress expanded the purpose of the program to include counterterrorism in section 1033 of the defense authorization bill. In one single page of a 450-page law, Congress helped sow the seeds of today’s warrior cops.

Astoundingly, one-third of all war materiel parceled out to state, local, and tribal police agencies is brand new. This raises further disconcerting questions: Is the Pentagon simply wasteful when it purchases military weapons and equipment with taxpayer dollars? Or could this be another downstream, subsidized market for defense contractors?

Whatever the answer, the Pentagon is actively distributing weaponry and equipment made for U.S. counterinsurgency campaigns abroad to police who patrol American streets and this is considered sound policy in Washington. The message seems striking enough: what is necessary for Kabul is also be necessary for DeKalb County.

In other words, the 21st-century war on terror has melded thoroughly with the 20th-century war on drugs, and the result couldn’t be anymore disturbing: police forces that increasingly look and act like occupying armies.

Evidence is mounting that America’s militarized police are a threat to public safety.

In a country where the cops increasingly look upon themselves as soldiers doing battle day in, day out, there’s no need for public accountability or even an apology when things go grievously wrong.

If community policing rests on mutual trust between the police and the people, militarized policing operates on the assumption of “officer safety” at all costs and contempt for anyone who sees things differently. The result is an “us versus them” mentality… and that is a dangerous mindset both for police officers and for those they “serve and protect”.

 

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Reposted from February 22, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan — Part 7: Stifle debate and force consensus; Identify; isolate and surveil opposition and their leaders. Threaten them with sedition. Criminalize dissent. Denigrate and ridicule American traditions and moral values.

There is a lot of talk these days, in the social media, on television and radio, in print media and on college campuses about free speech. Most of this talk is not worth very much. Especially when those who have been conditioned by the virus of “political correctness are confronted by an ethos opposed to their own that we find just how “intolerant” those who preach tolerance really are.

The cultural script of American society has changed drastically from what was considered the behavioral norm from WW II through the mid-1960’s. Here is a short list:

-Get married BEFORE you have children.
–Stay committed to the marriage if for no other reason than to provide stability for the children.
–Get the education you need to get and keep gainful employment.
–Work hard and avoid idleness.
–Go the extra mile for your employer or client.
–Be a patriot ready to serve your country.
–Be neighborly.
–Avoid coarse and vulgar language in public.
–Be charitable
–Be respectful of authority.
–Avoid substance  abuse and criminal behavior.

These societal norms defined the concept of what a responsible adult was. They were the major contributor to the productivity, educational gains and social coherence of the “Post-war baby boom”.

While ridiculed by the socially permissive culture of today, driven by the agenda of the societal elites, re-embracing that cast aside culture would go a long way toward addressing the social pathologies that plague our present society.

Not all cultures are equal in the preparation of people to be productive citizens in today’s society. The culture of the Lakota native Americans, for example, was designed for nomadic hunters and gatherers. The skills taught are not suitable for survival in our 21st. Century environment.

Neither are the single-parent, anti-social habits prevalent among some blue collar Whites. Nor is the “anti-acting-White” rap culture of inner-city Blacks or the “anti-assimilation” ideas prevalent among Hispanic and Muslim immigrants useful or productive.

So, what is likely to be the outcome if dissent and opposition are denigrated, shouted down and/or criminalized? What if we, as a society, continue to abandon those ethics and principles that made the United States “the shining beacon on the hill” to so many?

What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong and the norms of responsible adult behavior of the “Post-War baby boomers” and their parents was right?

What if we allow these mostly baseless charges of “racism” or Nazism” or “stereotyping and bias” or sexism” or “xenophopia” to bring discussion and debate to stop? What if “offensive” speech is deemed “unacceptable” and is silenced, first through social pressure and later through the force of law?

What if George Orwell was right and we willing forged our own chains of slavery to the Newspeak where the politically correct was the source of “Bellyfeel” “Goodthink” and adherence to responsible adult behavior and ethics is “Thoughtcrime”?

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Reposted from February 21,2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan — Part Six: Associate Judeo-Christian ethics and Constitutional advocacy with a backward and extremist and intolerant world view. Portray those who advocate gun rights and the second amendment as violent and prone to be anti-social and terrorists.

“You might be a Domestic Terrorist If” you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights. Sadly, this is not a joke. You might also be a terrorist if you have ever expressed concerns of Big Brother. Are you a Christian who has ever discussed the anti-Christ, the apocalypse, or even mentioned the book of Revelation? Guess what, according to the DHS during the previous administration then you too qualify as a potential domestic terrorist.

During the George W. Bush administration and intensified by the administration of Barack Hussein Obama policing has experienced a shift in focus from local community to a “federally dominated model of complete social control” coming out of, not surprisingly, Homeland Security. More specifically, the long-reaching DHS arms of TSA and FEMA have been pushed heavily to local law enforcement.

The most disturbing thing is the scope of domestic intelligence activities taking place today. Domestic spying is now being done by a host of federal agencies (FBI, DOD, DHS, DNI) as well as state and local law enforcement and even private companies.

Too often this spying targets political activity and religious practices. There are documented intelligence activities targeting or obstructing First Amendment-protected activity in at least 33 states and Washington DC.

The globalist elites, through their propaganda arm, the media, believe that We the People of the USA are a wildly dangerous group.

In fact, they think terrorists are lurking everywhere in America, waiting to attack. It is my firmly held belief that this ongoing preemptive attack on patriots and gun rights is because we love America, that we talk about and write about the worrisome facts of our great country becoming the land of surveillance and distrust, the place where neighbors are encouraged to report neighbors, and where local law enforcement is being told to be on the lookout for terrorists lurking all over their communities.

There is a concerted effort to remove the means of self defense from the general populace while the elites live in their gated communities protected by heavily armed security while children in the inner city are falling to drug addiction and gang violence.

In a 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone titled “The Obsolete Man,” a librarian in a police state, played by the late Burgess Meredith, is executed for the crime of believing in God. In his 1967 memoir, Tortured for Christ, Richard Wurmbrand describes how Soviet guards would tell prisoners, “I thank God in whom I don’t believe. Now I may indulge the evil in my heart” (p. 34).

Faced with such dismal levels of public approval, atheists felt the need to show believers that they were good people and not amoral communists. Beginning in the 1970s, the philosopher Paul Kurtz promoted what he called “secular humanism,” which focused on promoting human well-being without religion rather than converting people to atheism.

Our society has become imbued with moral relativism. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

When the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic church responding to a question regarding homosexuals responds; “The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge?”
we can be very sure that there has been a sea-change in the religious, ethical and moral climate of our society.

An important principle in human law is that ignorance of human laws does not present any defense in Court. The Latin terms for this concept is Ignorantia juris non excusat – ignorance of the law does not excuse, or ignorance of the law excuses no one. Another expression nemo censetur ignorare legem means nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law. The expression ignorantia iuris nocet means that not knowing the law is in fact harmful.

But just as we have all broken an earthly law at one time or another, so too we have all broken God’s laws. In fact, the Bible reveals that all of humanity stands accused before God of rebellion against Him and His laws, and that all have been declared guilty by Him. The penalty for transgression of His laws is death.

To know what is right and yet continue to follow the old 1960’s dictum of “if it feels good, go it!” shows we are no longer deceived but simply willful. If we choose to follow the “easier, softer way promised by the elites we have no excuse.

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Reposted from February 20, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan- Part five: Push “Beneficial Globalization” as the way toward universal peace. Demonize sovereignty as isolationism. Push artificial constructs such as “climate change”; “debt crisis”; “financial crisis/market meltdown” and “Human rights” vs “property rights”.

One world government refers to the idea of a central government whose authority extends across the entirety of this planet. The idea is generally that the many countries of the world would join together in a federation under one central government with no borders.

The most common proponents of this idea adhere to “progressive internationalism.” Commonly, they believe in a strengthened United Nations evolving into a world government.

They propose that the UN be supplemented with a directly elected parliamentary assembly, to give the UN authority independent of member states. They support international law as paramount over national law, and see it evolving into a single global legal system, with individual citizens having direct access to international courts with the power to overrule national legislation.

Proponents of world government  see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation.

It is common in fiction for the bad guys to lose and the good guys to win.

It is how most folks would like to see the world – just and fair. In psychology the tendency to believe this is how the real world actually works is a known cognitive bias called the Just-World Fallacy.

The proponents of  “progressive internationalism”believe that politics is about the government providing services, regulating activity, or redistributing wealth to secure social welfare. The paradigm is power flowing from the government down to the governed.

The United States, however, as outlined by the authors of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were concerned about how best to secure the rights of the people, and how to make sure that governments and people did not endanger those rights.

For the Framers of the Constitution the science of politics and the practice of politics were all about how to distribute power within the government in order to preserve private property, individual rights, and the rule of law which secured both.

The globalists insist that all nations should unite and thereby be governed by “Man’s better angels“, (directed by the elite globalists, of course).

In The Federalist No. 51, arguably the most important one of all, James Madison wrote in defense of a proposed national constitution that would establish a structure of “checks and balances between the different departments” of the government and, as a result, constrain the government’s oppression of the public. Madison penned the following paragraph, which comes close to being a short course in political science:

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

To surrender our sovereign freedoms enjoyed under the Constitution for the promised utopian ideal of a beneficial global state is to willingly relinquish the republic our Founding Fathers and so many of our forebears fought, bled and died for… for what? a THE STATE: a monopoly operating ultimately by threat or actual use of violence, making rules for and extracting tribute from the residents of the territory it controls.

“long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT,”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press