Thursday, April 23, 2015

Is the World Becoming a Police State?


The End of America 2014-2016: "It's Worse Than You Know"  
Obama and mayors planning not only to reform but to totally replace America’s police forces
By Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives 
May 1, 2015

Mayors and city councils—in office largely courtesy of public apathy—are President Barack Obama’s boots on the ground in the ongoing, carefully orchestrated racial riots coming soon to a city near you.
In their bid to rescue America from total Marxist eclipse, patriots, as it turns out, have been knocking on the wrong door.
Republicans, who surrendered to the Democrats even after taking over House and Senate in last Midterm elections,  have no dog in the racial riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities,  but Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake,  who ordered a police stand down in Baltimore, and a bevy of other Democrat mayors, do.
With the undercover help of activist municipal mayors and councils, Obama seeks not to reform the nation’s police—but to totally replace them.
While diverting public attention by snubbing senators, and overriding both Constitution and Congress, Obama is now hammering the final nail in the Fundamental Transformation of America coffin.
It’s a mission aided and abetted by mercenary ‘civil rights‘  activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and one largely conducted out of sight with White House help.
Local civic elections consistently have the lowest voter turnout, yet represent the level of government that poses the biggest threat to liberty and freedom.  It is through complicit mayors and councils that the United Nations has been able to forge the road to Agenda 21 for all of Western society. here
As incredible as it may seem, It is with the cooperation of municipal politicians that Obama will get to replace every police force in the United States with a more military styled one that is answerable only to him.
We the People should have seen Baltimore and Ferguson coming on July 2, 2008, when Obama boasted in Colorado Springs, CO: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Most assumed he was talking about the military, which he soon began to hollow out.
Few realized the most anti-American president ever elected had his sight fixed on replacing thousands of police forces across the country, whose job it has always been to keep the public peace, with his own military-style police.
It’s the return of Fidel Castro,  only this time in America.
By ridding the nation of its traditional police forces, Obama and his army of activist municipal politicians will be tossing into the trash can first responders who happen to wear the Serve & Protect badge.
Getting there has been Marxist Community organizing all the way.
First came the smear job spreading the fallacy that police deliberately profile only young blacks, and are addicted to the habit of randomly shooting them.  Marxist propaganda leaves the disingenuous impression that racist rogue cops dominate most police forces.
Within days of the Baltimore riots, Obama made it clear he wouldn’t be surveying the damage; wouldn’t be lifting a finger to call for calm.
He didn’t have to with the mayor doing his dirty work.
One hundred police officers were injured in the Baltimore riots.  Businesses up and running only the day before were left in burnt-out rubble,  facts carelessly written off by Obama.
Obama’s reaction to what’s going on in Baltimore has been expressed in words as casual as they are well crafted:
“The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working” as a community organizer, Obama said. “I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” (National Journal, April 29, 2015)
The difference now is that it’s Obama directing the racial riot movie.
With the Republicans snoozing at the switch, and most unsuspecting folk not knowing that Obama’s boots on the ground are the municipalities, what’s going to stop him from accomplishing his latest mission?
Obama counts on the same kind of apathy that dogs municipal elections about racial riots that are being staged, right down to including outside protesters being rushed in to the scene of the riots.
Like in televised episodes of Hill Street Blues, when the Black Arrows, Shamrocks and Los Diablos came together when there was something in it for them, the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam came together in Baltimore.
That coming together of the three parties was unprecedented.
Yet, instead of asking why the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam would come together during the Baltimore riots, Rowlings-Blake thanked the Nation of Islam.
Talk show radio giant and patriot Mark Levin points out that Rowlings-Blake was in constant touch with chief Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett throughout the riots.
By throwing gasoline on the racial discord gathering steam in American cities, is Obama sending a message to America’s foreign enemies that the U.S. is now at its most vulnerable for a strike?
Are internet commenters like Richard Jackson who posits:  “I think the riots are simply programming people to get used to a military presence (instead of police) and curfews, etc. for something bigger later on”,  on the right track?
Should edgy folk be watching the Jade Helm 15 large-scale military exercise to be played out from July 15 to November 15, across seven states, with thousands of locals “participating or role playing in the exercise” wearing I.D. markings be watching the military instead of passively letting the military watch them?
Meanwhile, speaking to a group of schoolchildren at the Anacostia Library in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Obama said he might return to community organizing.
In truth, his plans to nationalize America’s police forces, prove he’s never left it.
Is the US Becoming a Police State?
By John W. Whitehead
(Abridged by
April 25, 2015
I don't associate a police state with the kind of freedom and affluence a majority of Americans still enjoy. Yet the mainstream and alternate media are turning up the heat by focusing on police abuses which in proportion to the number of interactions are still pretty rare.
This article by John Whitehead is notable for its total lack of analysis of what is behind the trend he is describing. He seems to have no inkling of the Federal Reserve's agenda to create, in Caroll Quigley's words, "a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." (Tragedy and Hope, p.324)
Nor is there any suggestion of what can be done about it. It is a lot easier to control people who think they are free than to control people who have been aroused and angered by martial law measures. Yet the purpose of this propaganda seems to be to provoke either resistance or a feeling of helplessness. I invite readers to provide insight into what is happening.
"The malls may be open for business, the baseball stadiums may be packed, and the news anchors may be twittering nonsense about the latest celebrity foofa, but those are just distractions from what is really taking place: the transformation of America into a war zone."
Battlefield America: The War on the American People

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, "we the people" have now come full circle, from being a British colony to being held captive by the American police state.
To our dismay, we now find ourselves scrambling for a foothold as our once rock-solid constitutional foundation crumbles beneath us. And no longer can we rely on the president, Congress, the courts, or the police to protect us from wrongdoing.
Indeed, they have come to embody all that is wrong with America....
There is no end to the government's unmitigated gall in riding roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, whether in matters of excessive police powers, militarized police, domestic training drills, SWAT team raids, surveillance, property rights, overcriminalization, roadside strip searches, profit-driven fines and prison sentences, etc.
The president can now direct the military to detain, arrest and secretly execute American citizens. These are the powers of an imperial dictator, not an elected official bound by the rule of law. For the time being, Barack Obama wears the executioner's robe, but you can rest assured that this mantle will be worn by whomever occupies the Oval Office in the future.
A representative government means nothing when the average citizen has little to no access to their elected officials, while corporate lobbyists enjoy a revolving door relationship with everyone from the President on down.
Indeed, while members of Congress hardly work for the taxpayer, they work hard at being wooed by corporations, which spend more to lobby our elected representatives than we spend on their collective salaries. For that matter, getting elected is no longer the high point it used to be. As one congressman noted, for many elected officials, "Congress is no longer a destination but a journey... [to a] more lucrative job as a K Street lobbyist... It's become routine to see members of Congress drop their seat in Congress like a hot rock when a particularly lush vacancy opens up."
As for the courts, they have long since ceased being courts of justice. Instead, they have become courts of order, largely marching in lockstep with the government's dictates, all the while helping to increase the largesse of government coffers...
As for the rest--the schools, the churches, private businesses, service providers, nonprofits and your fellow citizens--many are also marching in lockstep with the police state. This is what is commonly referred to as community policing.
After all, the police can't be everywhere. So how do you police a nation when your population outnumbers your army of soldiers? How do you carry out surveillance on a nation when there aren't enough cameras, let alone viewers, to monitor every square inch of the country 24/7? ...You persuade the citizenry to be your eyes and ears.

(John Whitehead, left)

It's a brilliant ploy, with the added bonus that while the citizenry remains focused on and distrustful of each other, they're incapable of focusing on more definable threats that fall closer to home--namely, the government and its militarized police.
In this way, we're seeing a rise in the incidence of Americans being reported for growing vegetables in their front yard, keeping chickens in their back yard, letting their kids walk to the playground alone, and voicing anti-government sentiments.
Now it may be that we have nothing to worry about. Perhaps the government really does have our best interests at heart. Perhaps covert domestic military training drills such as Jade Helm really are just benign exercises to make sure our military is prepared for any contingency. As the Washington Post describes the operation:
The mission is vast both geographically and strategically: Elite service members from all four branches of the U.S. military will launch an operation this summer in which they will operate covertly among the U.S. public and travel from state to state in military aircraft. Texas, Utah and a section of southern California are labeled as hostile territory, and New Mexico isn't much friendlier.
Whether or not the government plans to impose some form of martial law in the future remains to be seen, but there can be no denying that we're being accustomed to life in a military state. The malls may be open for business, the baseball stadiums may be packed, and the news anchors may be twittering nonsense about the latest celebrity foofa, but those are just distractions from what is really taking place: the transformation of America into a war zone.
Trust me, if it looks like a battlefield (armored tanks on the streets, militarized police in metro stations, surveillance cameras everywhere), sounds like a battlefield (SWAT team raids nightly, sound cannons to break up large assemblies of citizens), and acts like a battlefield (police shooting first and asking questions later, intimidation tactics, and involuntary detentions), it's a battlefield.
Indeed, what happened in Ocala, Florida, is a good metaphor for what's happening across the country: Sheriff's deputies, dressed in special ops uniforms and riding in an armored tank on a public road, pulled a 23-year-old man over and issued a warning violation to him after he gave them the finger. The man, Lucas Jewell, defended his actions as a free speech expression of his distaste for militarized police.
Translation: "We the people" are being hijacked on the highway by government agents with little knowledge of or regard for the Constitution, who are hyped up on the power of their badge, outfitted for war, eager for combat, and taking a joy ride--on taxpayer time and money--in a military tank that has no business being on American soil.
Rest assured, unless we slam on the brakes, this runaway tank will soon be charting a new course through terrain that bears no resemblance to land of our forefathers, where freedom meant more than just the freedom to exist and consume what the corporate powers dish out.
If you haven't managed to read the writing on the wall yet, the war has begun.
Thanks to DM for the tip!

The Police Problem is Actually a Progressive Problem
Stand tall and do what's right, even if it goes against the progressives and left-wingers and those who think to destroy our nation and rebuild it in their own twisted image
By Tim Dunkin -- Bio and Archives
April 23, 2015
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who guards the guardians?)—Juvenal
Honest observers in this country have to admit that we have a police problem that is increasingly growing more serious.
While some of the stories that have come out about police brutality and police overreach have clearly been invented or exaggerated by the Left for the purposes of inflaming racial tensions and undermining American civic stability, there are nevertheless a large number of incidents in recent years which cannot simply be wishcast away. The warrantless, no-knock, early morning, heavily armed SWAT raid for even the most minor of things is becoming the norm all across America. Though many on the Right want to make excuses or attribute the increasing prevalence of these types of incidents to "a few bad apples," the fact of the matter is that the "policing problem" is becoming obvious enough that concern about it is no longer confined to a few "fringe" libertarian or "anti-police" sites, but is being recognized by more mainstream conservative outlets. Police militarization (which is as much an issue of mindset as it is of equipment), heavy-handedness, and bureaucratization are leading to a situation where America is beginning to look less and less like the land of the free, and more and more like an authoritarian police state.
This is apparent from the news we see coming out of Wisconsin about the "John Doe" investigations conducted by hyper-partisan opponents of Scott Walker. In a plain and obvious effort to silence and intimidate conservatives and other supporters of Scott Walker, Milwaukee district attorney John Chisholm used the extraordinary (and soon to be found unconstitutional) powers granted by declaring an investigation a "John Doe" case. "John Doe" investigations, under Wisconsin law, allow prosecutors to bypass the usual grand jury requirements, replacing empanelled citizens with a "supervising judge" (who, in this case, was also a hyper-partisan Democrat opponent of Scott Walker). The prosecutor is also allowed to keep targets of the investigation a secret, and said targets are restrained by gag orders from speaking to anyone—even friends or neighbors—about anything that has happened to them during the investigation. If this sounds like the perfect set up for a star chamber, then you know human nature better than many.
Left absolutely LOVE the police state
That is, of course, exactly what happened—and this is where the police come in. While pursuing this technically legal, yet grossly immoral and unconstitutional investigation, the prosecutor’s office sent in heavily armed SWAT teams, utilizing pre-dawn raids and helicopters, to roust several conservative supporters of Scott Walker in their own homes, pointing guns at them, scaring their children, defaming their reputations in front of their neighbors, seizing all of their financial and other personal records, and then ordering them not to talk about it to anyone on pain of imprisonment for "contempt of court." The only reason we know about these raids is because one of the victims finally, and courageously, violated the unconstitutional gag order and broke the news wide open.
What could have been accomplished merely by sending in a couple of county sheriff’s deputies with a subpoena and a search warrant to politely knock on their doors and serve the paperwork was instead done in a way that was purposefully intended to be psychologically and physically intimidating. And much more dangerously, too. What if one of the victims—many of whom initially believed they were facing a (non-state initiated) criminal home invasion - had shot at the police thinking they were defending themselves from armed robbers, and were killed, or killed a police officer, as a result? These people were no threat to the police. They weren’t going to come out guns blazing should a deputy simply serve them papers. SWAT was there simply for the repression and intimidation factors, nothing more.
Some might ask why I am criticizing the police when it is a petty, out-of-control prosecutor who was the cause of all of this. Yes and no, and I’ll get to the issue with the prosecutor in a moment. There is no issue of "a few bad apples" here. Entire police departments and sheriff’s offices signed off on these. The fact remains that each police officer who participated in one of these raids had a moral choice before him. He could do the right thing (which was, in this case, to not follow the orders given to him), or he could do the wrong thing—and they each chose to do the wrong thing. Yes, they may well have suffered repercussions for refusing these grossly unconstitutional orders. Yes, their jobs and their pensions might have been on the line. But you know what? What about the people whose lives they helped to turn upside down and nearly destroy? Don’t those folks count for anything? Cowardice and cupidity are no excuses for this. And the argument that they were "simply following orders" has not had any moral credibility since Nuremburg in 1945.
But yet, the ultimate fault lies not with the police officers. Rather, it lies with those, like AG Chisholm, who give them the unconstitutional, socially destructive, totalitarian orders in the first place. And this brings us to the root of the matter—the "police problem" in America is really a "progressive problem."
I’ve pointed out before that those on the Left absolutely LOVE the police state. They love the idea of thousands upon thousands of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and mandates that they get to enforce on you and me in their efforts to create their "progressive utopia." They also love the power that comes with having to have the extensive police state apparatus in place to enforce all these rules. And the power to make you set aside "green space" when you expand your driveway is also the power to send in SWAT should you fail to do so. You think I’m exaggerating? Then why did Homeland Security recently send in a SWAT team to seize a Land Rover from a North Carolina woman because it didn’t have the correct emission controls? And they did the same thing 39 other times with other Land Rover owners.
So what happens when you give "progressives" power to secretly investigate ideological opponents and other wrongthinkers, and give them access to SWAT teams to do it with? Just look at Wisconsin for your answer.
So it stands to reason that if we want to solve the "police problem" in America, then we’re going to need to solve the progressive problem. We’re going to need to expose them, clog up their system, do whatever is necessary to nullify and subvert the power they have and their ability to use it.
But there are a lot of things that the police themselves can do to help, if they really want to regain and then keep the trust and respect of the citizenry as a whole. And that is something that the police need to be concerned about. I’d like to address my comments now to any law enforcement officers who may be reading this.
To be sure, the crooks, kooks, and criminals out there have never liked the police, and they never will. But the problem for the police today is that the mainstay of their support—the largely (but not exclusively) white middle class that is concerned with law and order and social stability—is rapidly eroding, and this is happening because of the overreaches and heavy-handedness that many police departments are adopting as their standard operating procedures. People see SWAT busting into somebody’s house because the homeowner had a dispute with a neighbor about something (and this has happened), and the thought at the back of the mind is "that could be me next."
There is a big, big difference between "rule of law" and "just follow the rules." When the rules are unconstitutional, when the rules are being enforced in such a way that the Constitution—the ultimate basis of our laws—is trampled on, this undermines our civil society and contributes to the very instability that the rank-and-file police officer believes he is fighting against. Simply put, "just follow the rules, because we said so and will punish you severely for not doing so" is not the same thing as "law and order." Law and order needs to start with the officers of the state abiding by the ultimate document that makes their positions possible in the first place.
I realize that because they are headed up at the top by "progressive" kooks and wackos, many police departments have received training that teaches you that people who assert their rights and who believe in the Constitution are "dangerous, right wing terrorists." But the rank-and-file police officer needs to understand: we are not your enemies. The law-abiding gun owners, the constitutionalists who want a rule of law system, the people who just want to be left alone to live our lives in peace—we are not your enemies. We WANT a stable society. We WANT a civil society that functions for the benefit of all. We would support you wholeheartedly if you would respect our rights.
Look to the example of this sheriff in Oklahoma who encouraged a young man in his county, who has stopped two separate felonies via citizen’s arrest using his legally owned firearm, to tell his story to the media. This sheriff gets it. Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Sheriff David Clarke, who calls guns "the great equalizer" and has publicly encouraged county residents to arm themselves against criminals, gets it. They know that the law-abiding gun owners can be the policeman’s best friend—he can help to stop crimes because the police can’t be everywhere at once. By some estimates, law-abiding gun owners stop or prevent nearly half a million serious crimes a year. Why wouldn’t you want that on your side?
So what do I think the police should do? Stand up to the progressives giving you the unconstitutional orders and who are using you as a tool of repression. Refuse to obey their unlawful orders, and form a "thin blue line" in support of each other. Make your cases directly to your communities—seek our support, and we’ll support you when we know you’re doing the right thing. Respect our God-given rights affirmed by the Constitution, instead of the scurrilous words of left-wing politicians who hate you anywise, who used to call you "pigs" and "the fuzz" back before they got their hands onto political power and became your masters.
But there are other things as well. I would exhort police officers in America to revisit the way they think about the "civilians" in their communities. This would start by realizing that "civilian" is entirely the wrong term to use with us—since you are civilians too. Our civil society is not made to be enforced by a military. You are not a military. In most places that are not hard-core slums in the inner cities, you are not occupying military forces who should feel like there is this sharply delineated distinction between yourselves and us, between "the good guys" and "the civilians." Most of us "civilians"—especially those of us who are law-abiding guns owners and constitutionalists and so forth—are the good guys too. Our nation has a Posse Comitatus Act on the books for a reason.
Please, please, please overcome the bureaucratic mindset that wants to boil everything down to the most basic one-size-fits-all approach. A law-abiding gun owner out in the exurbs going to his job as a plumber or factory worker, the law-abiding inner city African-American trying to live his life but existing in fear because he’s been disarmed while the gangs have not—these folks are not the same as the thugs and gangbangers and career criminals. They shouldn’t be treated the same. Common sense needs to enter into the equation, regardless of all the "policies" and "procedures" put into place by left-wing social justice warriors.
An armed robber who just held up a bank and shot a guard, and who is holed up inside a house daring you to come get him—that is a situation for the use of SWAT. Serving a warrant for someone delinquent on his child support payments is not. There needs to be some review, some oversight, some stepping back and saying, "Is this really the best way to handle this situation?"
By the most recent estimates I have seen, there are nearly 270 million firearms in the hands of almost 100 million American citizens. Because of this, the law-abiding gun owners (who are the vast, vast, vast majority) could be your worst problem, or your best friends. We want to be your friends. We really do. We don’t like what Eric Holder and the rest of the police-baiters in D.C. are doing to defame you. We want to support you. But we want you to do the right thing and respect our liberties and our lives, too.
If you are ever ordered to begin confiscations of legally owned guns or to round up law-abiding gun-owners or other patriots—don’t obey those orders. It won’t go well for anyone involved, neither us nor you, and you won’t be able to get even a small fraction of us or them before word gets out. Remember the Constitution and obey it.
We want to support you because police officers are the ones who have sworn to the duty of maintaining our free, civil society, who help to guarantee the stability that makes our way of life possible instead of us being another Somalia rife with warlords and vendettas and all the rest. Please do not allow the left-wingers to use you to recreate another Nazi Germany, replete with secret police, midnight raids on dissidents and the disfavored, and repression for those who "don’t follow the rules." And make no mistake—that is exactly what the radical Left would love to see happen here in America. Stand tall and do what’s right, even if it goes against the progressives and left-wingers and those who think to destroy our nation and rebuild it in their own twisted image.
Systemic Police Problems Go Beyond 'Bad Apples'
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
April 23, 2015
When enough Americans realize the systemic police problem, politics will change
With technology, the public is becoming increasingly aware of problems with police abuse, brutality and corruption. Everyone has a cell phone and thus a camera. In a real sense, America is filled with millions of independent daily reporters who show everyone what is happening in their local areas. This tool is tremendous to protect liberty, and it is increasingly revealing problems with law enforcement agencies and offices. Despite the common excuse, you can't judge them all by a few bad apples, evidence reveals that our problems with police go beyond a "few bad apples."
A recent article by The Atlantic points out this reality. The article rightly notes that if the problems we now commonly see are simply a "few bad apples," then we would be seeing the "good cops" tossing the "bad apples" out and would be seeing police administration correcting the problems from a systematic standpoint: better training, hiring, discipline and policies.
Instead, we see cops sticking up for cops, even when the conduct is blatantly abusive and unconstitutional. But when video reveals the horror of the police' conduct, one has to wonder how and why good cops would so easily support and help the "bad apples." A recent example of this took place in San Bernardino County, CA, where
in the two minutes after the [suspect] was stunned with a Taser, it appeared deputies kicked him 17 times, punched him 37 times and struck him with batons four times. Thirteen blows appeared to be to the head." As many as 11 sheriff's deputies were ultimately complicit, with only the very last to arrive on the scene having a plausible excuse. (source).
Were the vast majority of police "good" and there only a very few "bad apples," then why do all of the good police either (1) sit back and do nothing in the face of abuse, or worse, (2) assist the "bad apples" in abusing suspects or violating the Constitution? Where is the individual's responsibility for upholding the integrity of the system? There seems to be little, from the lowest ranking officer to the highest.
The responsibility of police is diffused among many layers in the system, so that it is almost impossible to blame the system itself or the leaders who hide behind "bad apples". This diffusion of responsibility makes it really easy and convenient for police in higher positions to blame the "bad apples," while the system itself encourages and promotes what creates "bad apples." Sheriffs and police chiefs know or should know it.
The sad reality is, the atmosphere in which police are trained and operate promotes an "us versus them" mentality. Police presume guilt and prioritize "officer safety" over all. The right of the people to be secure in their persons and property takes a back seat in the bus, and accusation, arrest, prosecution and conviction drive the entire train--full steam ahead! If a person dares to assert his right not to speak or consent, officers assume he is guilty of something and is hiding contraband; and they treat him with disdain. Instead of respecting those who know and use their rights, police treat them more harshly.
When they feel like it, police will violate the people's rights: like search their property without consent or warrant; coerce people to speak or consent; stop and arrest on unreliable information or based on pretext; and belittle citizens with the slightest of evidence. At the end of the day, police care little for what rules and laws they broke because they say, "well, the courts can fix any mistakes I may make." In short, police have no reason not to break the law, because no one disciplines their unlawful behavior, even when it becomes known in court.
Then, when a good officer really attempts to respect the rights of the people and do things right, he will become overwhelmed by pressure and "suggestions" from his superior officers--those who have made a career in arresting and helping prosecutors convict people for victimless crimes. These good officers have two choices: 1) endure the wrath of "bad apples" or 2) quit. Most quit, which allows the "bad apples" to multiply like rabbits and control the system.
In the case of city police, the chiefs are (mostly) unelected. Instead, they are appointed by city council and/or mayor. They have no accountability to the people, and the people have no way to remove them. The police chiefs are term employees of a corporate municipality. Their job is not so much to "protect the public against crime." It is to collect fines from, what ends up being, the poor--those with little to no means of defending themselves and who, unfortunately, are little educated to know how to handle a police stop. Quite literally, city budgets are funded in large part by the poorest in society.
Adding insult to injury, cities will use the fines they collect from the poor to hire more officers. This leads to more prosecutions against mostly poor people. In many cases, city police will literally drive poor people into such tremendous debt that they will never dig themselves out of the hole. They give up because it simply isn't worth the effort. There is no relief, no reprieve. This cycle is vicious.
Add to this poison prosecutors who see themselves and police as a team. They are unwilling to discipline police and dismiss cases that are weak through illegally-obtained evidence or statements. Instead of reprimanding police action that is, at best, borderline lawful, the prosecutors justify everything the officers do and welcome them at their table in the courtroom. Meanwhile, they and the officers sneer at those they prosecute and criticize defense attorneys who represent their clients earnestly (see here for example). With this kind of support and kinship from the State, police feel invincible, especially when judges view the officers in the same light and refuse to correct their breaches of duty and law.
Too, we have national talk show hosts like Sean Hannity who laud police as though they deserve undying respect regardless of the social and personal atrocities created by their arrests and prosecutions. When police abuse makes its way to the national stage, "conservatives" spin the story to appear as though "liberals" are cop haters. They demonize the suspect as a villain so the public will forgive and forget whatever police abuse occurred. This causes people to rationalize their condemnation of the suspect, thinking, "he deserved what he got;" and praising the officer, exclaiming, "thank you for protecting us!"
But not all Americans are duped. Many realize and are realizing that the problem within police agencies and offices is not a "bad apple" problem. It is a systemic problem, one that touches the core of the voluminous laws we pass; the incentives given to officers to arrest; the layers of diffused responsibility that protects police abuse; the judicial system that defends the illegal actions of police; the distorted narrative by, mostly, "conservatives"; and the public's justification for police misdeeds because "bad people deserve it."
When enough Americans realize the systemic police problem, politics will change--laws will change--the system will change. Republicans will not get elected on a "tough on crime" mantra. Democrats will not be allowed to give only lip service to protecting the poor. True politicians will disdain the dangers of a legal and judicial system that encourages and protects "bad apples" and do something to correct it.
© 2015 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved.

Timothy Baldwin, born in 1979, is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and formerly Florida) and handles a variety of cases, including constitutional, criminal, and civil. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns–all of which are available for purchase through Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.
Global Capitalism and the Global Police State: Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism
By Prof William I. Robinson
Global Research, April 21, 2015
Url of this article:
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly, the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of the system and raise the stakes for humanity.
If we are to avert disastrous outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective, we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such as that of the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capital- ism is fundamentally different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated, either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world, North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class. This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational accumulation.
The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality, domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.

Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession" of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national states are hard-pressed to regulate trans- national circuits of accumulation and offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into a structural crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contra- dictions that can only be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation.
Prior to that, the structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the 1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis – in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural, ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness, values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing downward mobility, un- employment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system’s authority in the face of world- wide pressures for a global moral economy. And a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustain- ability rooted in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions of the world, among other indicators. By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new "Dark Ages."2
This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several features unique to the present:
1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the known history of life on earth.3
This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries" crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where will it now expand?
4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison- industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.

Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21st century fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised mass social control of the world’s surplus population and rebellious forces from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.

William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996), Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism (2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), and Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
References1.William I. Robinson (2004), A Theory of Global Capitalism:
Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; William I. Robinson, Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, see esp. chapter 1.
2. Sing C. Chew (2007), The Recurring Dark Ages: Ecological Stress, Climate Changes, and System Transformation, Landham, MD: AltaMira Press.
3. Elizabeth Kolbert (2014), The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, New York: Henry Holt.
4. The phrase is from Mike Davis’ study, Planet of Slums (2007), London: Verso.
5. See in particular, William I. Robinson (2014, in press), Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Copyright © 2015 Global Research
The paramilitary occupation of America
Joseph Kishor
12 March 2015
It is necessary to call things by their right names. The obscene regularity of police murders in the United States has reached the point where it is appropriate to speak of the police as an occupying army, whose daily violence and brutality can best be described as a war against the country’s poor and working people.
Practically every day brings a new outrage. The death toll mounts relentlessly, against the backdrop of harassment and beatings that are daily facts of life in much of the country. The government does not publish figures on police killings; however, according to statistics compiled from media reports, some 1,000 people lose their lives as a result of police violence every year in the United States. That averages out to almost three fatalities a day.
The list of victims reported just over the past three weeks includes:
Anthony Hill, 27, Atlanta, Georgia. Unarmed, naked, suffering from mental illness, reportedly seen hanging from his balcony and crawling on the ground. Shot dead by a police officer on March 9.
Anthony Robinson, Jr., 19, Madison, Wisconsin. Unarmed. Shot dead by a police officer who forced his way into the victim’s apartment building on March 6.
Naeschylus Vinzant, 37, Aurora, Colorado. Unarmed, wanted on an arrest warrant. Shot and killed by a heavily armed paramilitary SWAT team on March 6.
Derek Cruice, 26, Volusia County, Florida. Unarmed, killed in his home. Victim in a drug raid that turned up a few ounces of marijuana. Fatally shot in the face on March 4.
Ernest Javier Vanepa Diaz, 28, Santa Ana, California. Unarmed, killed in his car. Father of four, working two jobs. Shot dead on February 27 after, in the words of the local police chief, he "did not cooperate."
Ruben Garcia Villapando, 31, Euless, Texas. Unarmed, killed in his car. Shot dead on February 20 after he allegedly disobeyed an officer’s commands during a traffic stop.
Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35, Pasco, Washington. Unarmed. Accused of throwing rocks at police. Shot dead as his hands were raised on February 10.
These names must be added to a list that includes Akai Gurley and Eric Garner in New York; twelve-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio; Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; and many others.
The mind-boggling level of police violence in the United States far exceeds that of any other major industrialized country. In Germany, there were eight police killings in 2013 and 2014 combined. In Canada, about a dozen people are killed by police each year.
In the past year, more people were killed by the police in Pasco, Washington (population of 68,000) than in all of Great Britain (population of 64,000,000) over the past three years.
Some of these killings are captured on videotape and become national news. Many more are barely reported or go unmentioned.
One web site that compiles local media reports, "Killed by Police," documented 212 police killings in the first 70 days of this year, including at least seven on Wednesday alone. One brief media account is indicative: "A suspect has been fatally wounded after a brief police pursuit… The sheriff’s deputy discharged his weapon at the car after it finally stopped. The suspect was pronounced dead…"
The above incident could have happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Such atrocities against civilians are commonplace in the countries occupied by the American military. There have been countless reports over the past 14 years of cars shot up by US military patrols because their drivers did not follow orders; of homes raided by American troops, their occupants beaten, arrested or shot.
Like the military, the police are trained to see the population as a hostile force. They demand that anyone they encounter act with complete submissiveness. Failure to obey is punishable by a beating, a jolt of electricity, arrest or summary execution.
The local police have intimate ties with the uniformed military and Pentagon. The latter has transferred billions of dollars in heavy weapons and military-grade equipment—including armored vehicles, helicopters and automatic weapons left over from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—to police departments across the country, in a program fully endorsed by President Obama.
Aurora, Colorado, for example, where Naeschylus Vinzant was killed last week, has received $500,000 in military equipment since 2006, including a Mine Resistant (MRAP) vehicle, shields, and dozens of automatic rifles.
Volusia County, where Derek Cruice was shot, has received $1,251,000 in military equipment, mainly in the form of automatic rifles, a $250,000 personnel carrier, and a MRAP valued at nearly $700,000.
To account for the militarization of domestic policing over the past half-century, one must examine the far-reaching changes in the structure of American society that have occurred. While police violence—overwhelmingly directed against the working class and its struggles—has long been a basic feature of American life, the systematic militarization of the police has developed alongside the transformations that have taken place since the 1960s.
Heavily armed SWAT teams first made their appearance in the latter years of that decade, in response to the urban uprisings and social upheavals of the period. By the end of the decade, the ruling class was repudiating the policy of social reform it had followed since the New Deal of the 1930s.
At the end of the 1970s, the political establishment launched an offensive against the jobs, wages and living standards of the working class that has continued ever since. "Law and order" politics became the political cover for a rapid buildup of the police powers of the state, including a vast expansion of the prison system and the transformation of the police into a paramilitary force.
These processes were intensified after 9/11 under the banner of the "war on terror." The police were integrated more directly into the massive military-intelligence apparatus—the FBI, CIA, NSA and Pentagon. The local police today are tied by a million threads to the national system of repression and control.
This is what underlies the Obama administration’s insistent interventions in defense of the police, including Obama’s statement supporting the exoneration of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson cop who killed Michael Brown, and his declaration last week that "the overwhelming number of law enforcement officers" do their job "fairly, and they do it heroically."
The political establishment views the whitewash of Wilson not as a local question, but as a national necessity. In defending the police, in ensuring that there is no accountability for their crimes, Obama is upholding a critical part of the apparatus of repression.
The police carry out "heroic" work not in the service of the people, but in defense of the capitalist system and the ruling corporate-financial oligarchy. As social struggles develop, the police are called on to ever more directly use the violent methods honed by the military abroad against the working class at home.
Police violence is not fundamentally a question of racism, as claimed by the various organizations that orbit the Democratic Party. Whatever role racism may play in any given act of brutality, police violence is embedded in the irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the capitalist class and those of its opposite—the working class. This basic class division of society has grown all the more explosive with the colossal growth of social inequality.
This is why the fight against police violence must be rooted in the unification and mobilization of the working class, and the working class must see the fight against police violence as central to its own interests.
In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson included among the "long train of abuses and usurpations" of the British King the following: "Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" and "protecting them, by mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they commit." Then it was a question of overthrowing the British monarchy. Today it is a question of overthrowing the capitalist system.
Americans Killed by Cops Now Outnumber Americans Killed in Iraq War
By Matt Agorist on December 12, 2013
The increase in police brutality in this country is a frightening reality. In the last decade alone the number of people murdered by police has reached 5,000. The number of soldiers killed since the inception of the Iraq war, 4489.
What went wrong? In the 1970’s SWAT teams were estimated to be used just a few hundred times per year, now we are looking at over 40,000 military style "knock and announce" police raids a year.
The police presence in this country is being turned into a military with a clearly defined enemy, anyone who questions the establishment.
If we look at the most recent numbers of non-military US citizens killed by terrorism worldwide, that number is 17. You have a better chance of being killed by a bee sting, or a home repair accident than you do a terrorist. And you are 29 times more likely to be murdered by a cop than a terrorist!
A hard hitting mini film by film maker Charles Shaw, properly titled RELEASE US, highlights the riveting and horrid reality of America’s thin blue line.
From the film:
500 innocent Americans are murdered by police every year (USDOJ). 5,000 since 9/11, equal to the number of US soldiers lost in Iraq.
In 1994 the US Government passed a law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus Cold War era military equipment to local police departments.
In the 20 years since, weaponry designed for use on a foreign battlefield, has been handed over for use on American streets…against American citizens.
The "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" replaced the Cold War with billions in funding and dozens of laws geared towards this new "war" against its own citizens.
This militarization of the police force has created what is being called an "epidemic of police brutality" sweeping the nation.
Also See:
Comrade, Welcome to the Police State!

(Part 1)
30 October 2009
(Part 2)
29 September 2010
(Part 3)
17 May 2012
(Part 4)
30 March 2013
(Part 5)
28 July 2013
(Part 6)
14 August 2014
Is Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't!
(Part 1)
14 April 2007
(Part 2)
21 May 2009
(Part 3)
21 February 2012
U.S. Civil Unrest, Crowd Control, and Detention Camps
21 October 2008
Martial Law? Revolution? What is in the Future?
24 July 2009
ID Cards - Soon Everyone will have One!
03 September 2009
Big Brother is Watching
(Part 1)
06 September 2009
(Part 2)
02 February 2014
(Part 3)
23 June 2014
Big Brother in the United Kingdom!
02 April 2010
America's Police State
03 January 2011
Do We Live in a Police State?
04 November 2011
Police State Canada!
01 December 2011
What's with Google?
11 March 2012
Why is the Department of Homeland Security Stockpiling Ammo?
29 April 2013
Is Canada a Police State?
01 July 2013
Kent State Massacre in 1970
08 May 2007
Lets Not Forget Ruby Ridge
11 December 2008
Aldous Huxley and George Orwell
03 March 2009
The Trap!
30 June 2013
Gary Allen's book - “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
04 December 2013
What They Don't Tell You!
05 December 2013