|PRISON PLANET.com Copyright © 2002-2005 Alex Jones All rights reserved.|
Police State! Coming? Or Already Here?
A concerned reader who has been attentively observing the "signs of the times" makes a thoughtful comment and poses some pertinent questions:
It appears that our police forces in America are changing and that we are developing into a Police State/Surveillance Society. What is the traditional model for police forces in America? Are they in the process of being militarized? If so, for what reason? How can we reconstruct the American concept of police?
The answer is yes. The orientation and underlying concept of police enforcement in America have, indeed, been changing, but changing so quietly as to be hardly noticeable except by a few careful observers. The traditional orientation of police enforcement has been local rather than national. It was the sheriff, the highest police official in the county, and his deputies who were unquestioningly in control of maintaining peace and apprehending law breakers.
Incorporated cities and municipalities have the same local orientation, but the titles change to chief of police and policemen on the beat. The general concept used to be that law enforcement was applied by the sheriff’s deputy or policeman on the beat right where problems occurred. This historic view has changed because of political pressures and monetary influences from the national level of government. But even now the sheriff, as the highest-ranking police officer in the county, still has authority to tell federal agencies and their SWAT teams (FBI, BATF, DEA, IRS, and federal marshals) how they must conduct themselves in his county. Sadly, very few sheriffs have the intestinal fortitude to buck the evolving national-statist system because doing so might threaten their careers or their standing with federal agencies on whom they have become financially dependent.
Police State Defined
Before we discuss the development of the Police State in America, it is needful to define the term. Police states are often initiated by a violent putsch: Lenin’s overthrow of the Russian government in 1917, Mussolini’s growing use of violence which led to his becoming Prime Minister of Italy in 1922, and Hitler’s Reichstag fire and appointment as Prime Minister of Germany in 1933. Each of these emerging police states focused on alleged internal and external enemies to solidify support among domestic followers. Terror, intimidation, and propaganda were freely used. Citizens were disarmed as quickly as possible to make them easier to control.
A Police State is characterized by centralized control over every aspect of society: political, economic, social, cultural, and religious. This can be done through state ownership of the means of production (socialism: France, Britain); or by being tied politically with "communist rule of the proletariat" (Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR, Castro’s Cuba); or it can be done through a more sophisticated form of statist control by which ownership of the means of production is left in the hands of private entities (fascism: Mussolini’s Italy; Hitler’s NAZI Germany; and, sadly, our modern USA, which has over 85 government-control agencies: the ICC, FTC, FCC, FDA, EPA, IRS, DEA, FDIC, BATF, FEMA, IRS, Homeland Security, etc., etc.).
The fascistic form of government control that developed in America got its big push by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was enamored with Italian fascism. During the 20th century, regulation by federal agencies grew rapidly as each generation of American citizens was conditioned – through tax-supported education, textbook revisions, and government/news media propaganda – to embrace the freedom-destroying concept of "government regulation to protect the people." This was able to come about because each new generation had less understanding of the Constitution. Our founding fathers would be aghast at the centralized government control (fascism) which now exists in America. They thought in terms of the careful division of power to keep government from being centralized and unlimited. Only a very few limited powers were granted to the federal government by the states, and these were carefully delegated and enumerated.
Early Police States relied heavily on secret police squads (paid thugs) to intimidate citizens into submission (the Soviet Union had its KGB; NAZI Germany had its brown-shirt Gestapo; and fascist Italy had its black-shirt thugs called Facis Di Combattimento). Those who opposed the growing Police State never knew when the door of their home might come crashing down in the dark of night to be beaten, killed, or forcibly moved to a concentration camp.
In recent years in America, black-masked government SWAT teams (also paid thugs) have increasingly appeared on the scene (BATF, FBI, DEA, federal marshals, and joint-task forces). Today, only the unaware feel safe.
Some very keen observers and excellent students of history regard the so-called "terrorist attack" of 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina with its disturbing aftermath, as likely "putsches" meant to generate chaos for justifying the imposition of Martial Law, the disarming of Americans, and the birth of a full-blown Police State in America.
A frightening thought? Certainly! But take heed to a timely warning: As I carefully watch the outworking of both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, I see too many signs that Americans are being psychologically conditioned to accept a Police State! The growing use of masked government SWAT teams is an early warning signal of the erection of a Police State designed to rule over a frightened and compliant citizenry who have been conditioned to value the illusory promise of "security from terrorism" more than liberty and individual self-responsibility. The irony is that the so-called "terrorists" against whom we are to be protected are more likely to be found within our own government than in foreign countries!
Pressures to Federalize and Militarize Local Law Enforcement
Referring to the key role of sheriffs in law enforcement, mentioned above, one sheriff who did have the intestinal fortitude – along with a good understanding of the U.S. Constitution – to buck pressures from Washington, D C., was Richard I. Mack who served as sheriff of Graham County, Arizona. In January, 1994, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) mailed all law enforcement administrators in the country a copy of its interpretation of local law enforcement’s duties regarding the "Brady Law," which required a five-day waiting period to purchase firearms. Sheriff Mack correctly reasoned along this line:
First, the law is completely contrary to the U.S. Constitution, . . .
The Brady Bill also violates the Constitution of Arizona, which states, ". . . the rights of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms in his own defense or in defense of the state, shall not be impaired." . . .
Second, the Federal Government has no jurisdictional authority to order or command me (or any other sheriff in this country) to enforce federal law. . . . I am not a federal agent; I work for Graham County and was hired by the people of the county to do their bidding. [Richard I. Mack and Timothy Robert Walters, From My Cold Dead Fingers (Safford, AZ: Rawhide Western Publishing, 1996), 15–16.]
Note that Sheriff Mack’s thinking concerning jurisdictional authority was perfectly in accordance with what is known as the principle of governmental interposition. [Tom Rose, Reclaiming the American Dream by Reconstructing the American Republic (Mercer, PA: American Enterprise Publications, 1996), 6, 14, 28–33.]
This is just one example of the country-wide effort to federalize local law enforcement. Other pressures come from the vast monetary resources of various federal agencies already mentioned. These agencies "share" money forcibly taken from citizens (from seizures of money and property) for distribution to "bought-off" local judges and law enforcement agencies. Thus, is justice perverted (Isaiah 59:14). It takes a county-level official with a iron will and a very high sense of internal integrity to resist the seductive lure of easy federal funds to buy new guns and equipment, training, or other forms of assistance because needed funds at the local level always seem to fall short of ever-pressing needs.
The posse comitatus doctrine ("force of the county") comes from English common law. Posse comitatus consists of the body of men above age 15, whom the sheriff has authority to call into county service to help maintain law and order during an emergency. The U.S. Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 because Congress had become concerned about the growing practice of federal marshals in the South, and local sheriffs in the West, to press army troops into their service to meet local emergencies without first getting approval from the president as commander in chief. Congress’ goal was to preserve the strength of the U. S. Army so it could perform its primary duty of protecting our country and its borders, something it might not be able to do if its manpower was systematically diverted to unauthorized uses.
On the other hand, posse comitatus does not – contrary to popular misunderstanding – prevent the President from using federal troops to quiet riots or civil disorders. This has been done many times in the history of our country. Nor does posse comitatus prevent the U.S. military from supporting local or state law enforcement, as long as troops are not used to make arrests or to investigate crimes. Finally, posse comitatus does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops while on active state duty under command of the governor of the state, or to state guards or State Defense Forces under command of the governor.
Steps Toward A Centralized Police State
At this point it is important to recap certain happenings, which when viewed as a whole, will show the systematic erection of a police state in America. Warning: Some parts of this will be disturbing to readers who are not aware of these "signs of the times." That is why our Lord raises up "watchmen on the wall" (Isaiah 62:6):
November, 1963: Shortly before President John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, Texas, he made certain statements, any one of which would align powerful antagonistic forces against him:
He would eliminate the CIA,
He would issue Treasury greenbacks (which don’t pay interest) in lieu of financing government deficits through the Federal Reserve, and
He spoke against empowering the state of Israel with nuclear capability.
Kennedy’s murder served as a clear warning to future Presidents that they better "toe the line" or suffer the same fate.
In short, JFK’s assassination amounted to a coup d¹êtat, a decisive exercise of force by which our constitutional government was subverted. Since then, America has been controlled by a ruthless, behind-the-scenes cabal, intent on building a New World order that is systematically destroying our constitutional government and erecting a centralized fascist state. Since 1963, every President, regardless of political party, has been little more than a fearful, though willing puppet of the ruling cabal.
February 28, 1993: The FBI made an armed raid on the Branch Davidian Compound, a religious community led by David Koresh (nee Vernon Wayne Howell) near Waco, Texas, of whom Sheriff Mack says, ". . . he was marked for death by the United States Government as deliberately as John F. Kennedy was marked by his assassin." [Mack, 111]
Various charges were made against Koresh, but the key point is this: The allegations of wrong doing fell properly within the venue of local law enforcement rather than federal. Also, it was commonly known that Koresh made visits to town almost daily, so he could have been picked up without engaging in a military-type assault on the compound which housed many women and children. Videos of the final assassination show that the federals intentionally fired machine guns at women and children every time they attempted to escape the roaring flames consuming the compound. Why were the federals so intent to eliminate survivors? Why did the federals preempt local police authorities to keep out observers? Why did federal authorities dispose of the rubble so quickly? What were they hiding?
Koresh’s group became aware of drug smuggling on a deserted army landing field next to the compound; therefore, everyone in the compound was marked for extinction. This allegation cannot be proven because the witnesses are all dead or compromised, but it fits in with the history of drug running by the OSS and the CIA to raise "off budget" operating funds. For information about CIA drug running read Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POWs in Vietnam by Monika Jensen-Stevenson and William Stevenson (New York: Dutton, 1990).
While the CIA was inundating our country with drugs to raise "off-budget" funds for undercover-operations overseas, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in 1970. An honest application of the law should have arrested everyone connected with CIA drug running. But, as always, such laws are only aimed at the common people.
And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter (Isaiah 59:14).
In 1973, following President Nixon’s declaration of a "War on Drugs," various federal law enforcement agencies were reorganized into the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Vast sums of tax monies were then directed to smother the flames of the very drug addiction that the CIA drug-running operations were inciting! The use of federal and local SWAT teams soared. The amount of unconstitutionally seized property also soared; and the amount of internal police corruption resulting from the sudden inflow of captured drugs and seized property is beyond knowing.
Forcible property seizures skyrocketed because of a new "legal twist" that was applied to property by the courts. This innovative "legal twist" presupposes that property itself, not the owner or user of property, is the guilty party! Therefore it can be seized! Property even suspected of being used in relation to drugs was then seized and sold, even if the accused parties were never brought to trial and convicted! This is absolute totalitarianism! People with cash on their person became immediate suspects of drug involvement and were presumed guilty unless they could prove themselves innocent. Reports of people having their homes, autos, money, boats, and other property seized abounded. Use of drug-sniffing dogs confronted people at airports and other public places. Government surveillance of citizens mushroomed; their cash dealings and bank accounts were monitored – all of these are indications of an evolving Police State.
April 19, 1995: A home-made truck bomb exploded in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, allegedly killing 168 people. I use the word "allegedly" because of a problem: The truck bomb was not powerful enough to do much more than blow out the windows! On-the-scene witnesses testified of hearing internal explosions; it was these bombs that imploded the building! As in the Kennedy assassination, those who insisted in pursuing the truth met with untimely ends.
Ben Partin, a retired Air Force general who specialized in explosives, made a thorough study and issued a detailed report showing that the building was imploded by charges previously placed at key points "on the reinforced concrete superstructure." As in the Waco destruction some years earlier, the federal government invaded the proper political venue of local law enforcement to oust local investigators, then quickly cleaned up and disposed of the debris so a thorough and meticulous investigation could not be done. The bloody incident – which cries out to be recognized as an inside job – was used by the federal government to justify further growth of the Surveillance State.
September 11, 2001: There is no doubt at all that the so-called "terrorist act" of 9/11 was an inside job. How can we be so sure?
What follows is information from experienced civilian and military pilots who were invited by Col. Donn de Grand Pré (ret. Air Force) to a meeting to discuss and evaluate the 9/11 attack. Here are excerpts from the colonel’s report (portions not in quote marks belong to de Grand Pré) entitled "The Enemy Is Inside the Gates:"
The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation . . . requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.
. . . the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, equaled the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941.
One General officer remarked, "I seriously question whether these novices [the alleged hijackers] could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point . . .
The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets was superb. As one Air force officer – a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam – explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."
Another comment: "If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?
A hotly debated question: Who would be in command of such an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Chinese? Russians? Saudis? Israelis? NATO? All of these countries possess AWACS-type aircraft. All (except the Saudis) have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them by remote control.
Captain Kent Hill (American Airlines) said, " . . . Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." How come?
"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time."
He [Hill] is convinced none of the pilots had control of their aircraft when they were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The question then becomes, who was really in control?
" Even if I had a gun at my head, I’d never fly a plane into a building . . . and I’d be scaring the h___ out of them (the hijackers) by flying upside down first," Hill said.
In fact, the pilot has the best weapon in his hand when threatened with imminent death by a hijacker, namely, the airplane.
Another airline pilot stated: "On hearing a major scuffle in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft and the hijackers end up with broken necks." That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control.
As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft.
As we consider all the options – and enemies . . . China, Russia, Israel, an Islamic country, or NATO), we must also consider that the enemy may be within the gates.
If so, then we are dealing with high treason.
The above report provides overwhelming evidence that remote-controlled planes hit the Twin Towers. Both imploded in 8 to10 seconds – an inescapable signature of a professionally engineered implosion from previously implanted explosives at key structural points. Rescue workers on the scene were eye witnesses (rather, "ear’ witnesses) of such explosions. Certainly, the low temperature diesel-fuel fires (smoke = insufficient oxygen, thus low temperature) were many degrees too cool to damage the structural support of the buildings, which were designed to withstand such collisions! Further evidence of a planned implosion is the collapse of Building #7 at the Trade Center, which was not hit by a plane, when the owner said, "Pull it!" Building #7 fell in the very same manner as the Twin Towers.
What about the Pentagon? Early photos immediately after the crash of the supposed "airliner" show a horizontal hole about 15 feet wide, much too narrow if it were actually hit by a large airliner with a wide wingspan and heavy engines. Also, the sharp turn this "air vehicle" reportedly made would have generated too much centrifugal force for a live pilot to remain conscious and in control of the plane. The answer? A Global Hawk-controlled aircraft also hit the Pentagon!
Remember American history: It is now proven that President Franklin D. Roosevelt intentionally sacrificed almost 3,000 U.S. servicemen as bait to entice Japan to attack Pearl Harbor with the goal of convincing a reluctant American public to enter World War II.
President Lyndon Johnson also lied to the American public about the alleged "Tonkin Bay Incident." He falsely claimed that North Vietnam had attacked two U.S. destroyers on August 2, 1964. Result: Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on August 7, which got our country more deeply involved in the Vietnam War in which 58,000 Americans died.
Did George W. Bush have a good reason to invade Iraq? No! He first claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Later, when this was disproved, he claimed Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction." None was ever found. He then claimed Saddam had ties to a supposed "terrorist organization" called al Qaeda (another falsehood). The truth is that the controlling cabal behind the Bush Administration had been planning to attack countries in the Mid East whom the state of Israel regards as enemies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) for a long time. The Administration, dominated by so-called "Neocons," was looking for a plausible excuse for a preemptive attack on Iraq. The excuse was provided by 9/11. Proof of this is perhaps best grasped with the recent release of the "Downing Street Memo" which contains an overview of a top-secret meeting in Britain held on July 23, 2002 (months before we attacked Iraq). Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence, MI6) remarked that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power. In short, U.S. intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was deliberately falsified to fool the public in both the U.S. and in Britain!
Political leaders who impose totalitarianism overseas will not hesitate to impose a centralized Police State domestically. This helps explain both the 9/11 "terrorist attack" and what has happened in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans
In the chaotic aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the Pentagon declared martial law in New Orleans, which it had no constitutional authority to do. According to many well-documented news reports, FEMA did not allow early help and supplies into the area: Three trailer trucks of drinking water from Wal-Mart were turned back. Jefferson Parish President, Aaron Broussard, on Meet the Press, told how FEMA refused to allow needed diesel fuel to be delivered by the Coast Guard. He also told how FEMA deliberately cut official communication lines, which Sheriff Harry Lee promptly reconnected and then posted armed deputies so the lines would not be cut again. Sheriff Jeff Hingle of Plaquemines Parish also ordered his deputies to patrol the county line with orders not to let FEMA in.
G. Edward Griffin, a trustworthy "watchman on the wall," has this to say about FEMA’s "apparent failure" in New Orleans:
. . . the primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security was not to protect citizens, but to protect the government and keep it functioning.
. . . Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government – and this they succeeded in doing very well.
Because of these Police State tactics by federal agencies, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco refused to allow federal authorities to federalize National Guard units and state and local law enforcement.
These acts by the Louisiana sheriffs and Governor Blanco are perfect examples of the biblical (and constitutional) principle of governmental interposition. The point to recognize is that these protective actions by civil magistrates at the county and state levels of jurisdiction were legitimate and necessary to preserve their proper venues of political jurisdiction. For, in a republic (these United States of America are a republic, not a democracy!), civil government is divided into various levels or venues of authority which must be kept separate and independent (local, county, state, and national) to prevent centralized tyranny.
Picking Up the Pieces
My evaluation of all these happenings, though we could go back another 30 years to FDR’s infamous coup d¹êtat, is that we have steadily been moving toward a full-blown Police State which keeps track of every aspect of every American’s life from birth to death as a means of centralized control. Please note that, though this is a conclusion based on factual happenings, people can disagree on how facts should be interpreted. Therefore, I don’t expect everyone to agree with my conclusions. But, as a "watchman on the wall" (Isaiah 62:6), I can only give a timely warning of what I see. What, then, can we do?
For three years, my wife and I held monthly Constitutional Study Group Meetings in our home. Patriots attended from an 80-mile radius. But, if I am right in my conclusions about the immanency of a totalitarian Police State in America, then it’s much too late to use the educational route of home meetings.
What, then, armed rebellion? This would be appropriate if Americans today were as freedom-minded as our forefathers were during the Revolutionary War period. But, sad to say, they are not. The vast majority of Americans today have been too firmly conditioned mentally through tax-supported education, government propaganda, and the controlled news media. Thus, they don’t have the slightest understanding of man’s God-given freedom coupled with God-given personal responsibility. Too many Americans today are recipients of federal monies in one form or another, so they fear to "bite the hand that feeds them."
What is left? Prayer is always available. But God has already warned a people who ". . . rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (I Samuel 8:7), that they ". . . shall cry out in that day. . . and the Lord will not hear you in that day" (I Samuel 8:18). But, our Lord is always merciful and forgiving, so we might well pray for deliverance and ask Him to turn the hearts of our political leaders as a means of restoring freedom (Psalm 72:1; Proverbs 8:15; I Timothy 2:1–2; Psalm 143:8–9).
Another form of prayer is imprecatory prayer through which believers call upon God to pour out His wrath on evil rulers and doers of iniquity. Many Christians are unaware of the sheer number of imprecatory prayers in the Bible (Psalms 10:15; 55;9–11, 15–16; 58;3–8, 10-11; 68:1–2; 69:22–28; 83:11–18; 109:7–31). Now is a time to use God’s model for such prayers in asking God’s deliverance from growing tyranny.
Lastly, this brings us to God’s biblical method of deposing tyrants through intermediate civil magistrates whom God raises up to save His people by interposing themselves between the offending tyrant(s) and the oppressed people. But, first, we must repent from the sins for which He might be bringing the curse of governmental tyranny upon us. There is no doubt that we as a people have strayed far from applying the biblical principles of righteousness to every aspect of our life: personal, family, church, civil government, as well as economic pursuit. Can we expect God’s favor if we don’t first turn to Him in repentance?
I referred to the biblical and historical principle of governmental interposition earlier in this essay. The first published article that I wrote on this timely and much needed principle was entitled "On Reconstruction and the American Republic" in 1978. [Tom Rose, "On Reconstruction And The American Republic," The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (Summer, 1978): 14.]
Thankfully, there are many individuals throughout America who qualify as an "intermediate magistrate." Every elected officeholder or political bureaucrat who has taken the oath of office and has sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic is, in fact, an intermediate magistrate from both a biblical and constitutional viewpoint. This, by the way, includes every person who is serving, or has served, in the military. Let us pray that God will raise up leaders to serve as intermediate magistrates, and citizens to rally behind them, to return America to constitutional government. Freedom and self-responsibility will then be restored. This is truly God’s revealed plan for restoring godly law and order to our troubled country!