But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.

Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete.

In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction.
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support.

Got to love this guy….who do you suppose it is….our next President I hope.

Read the whole transcript…it is well worth the effort

Is America a Police State?

Ron Paul's basic agument is that the government has taken too much power fom the people in the name of "safety and security" and that the government has no business involving itself in safety and security. While I would tend to agree with Paul on issues regarding free trade and regulation by the government, he's dead wrong on issues of national security.

As you can see, the Constitution specifically provides for Congress (and the President as Commander-and-Chief under the war-powers clause of Article II, section 2) to have the very national security powers that Paul says they shouldn't have as a matter of constitutional principal. Ron Paul is ignoring the powers specifically provided by the Constitution to the Federal Government.

For all his protestations of being a strict Constitutionalist libertarian, Paul is nothing of the sort. He's an anarchist by nature, believing in NO GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER. And while I believe in limited government, I believe that the government should be limited to their Constitutionally mandated powers, not to what Ron Paul thinks they OUGHT to be.

Sorry, but a guy who believes in a foolish "citadel defense" strategy, who has essentially stated that he believes that the government has no business protecting its citizens, and who would be very happy is there was no government whatsoever so that he can buy all the drugs he wants without going to jail is not the guy I want running the government. What he wants is the ability to be able to do anything he wants, legal or illegal, without consequence, and that's just not how the world works.

Ron Paul for President? I wouldn't elect the guy dog-catcher. He'd probably let all the feral dogs loose on principal.

Elliot

I think most agree that Martial law does not always equal a police state. But I do wonder how far Homeland Security will be used. Is it more of Big Brother? Personally I don't mind giving up some freedom for protection. Now the question is how much privacy should be surrendered? Then there is the business side of this, for example: Immigration application fees as well as the cost of Citizenship are becoming more and more expensive. BTW Immigration has been a part of Homeland Security for years now.



Bobby

When I first read [today] his speech on the floor of Congress I thought, this guy has summed-up what I have been saying since I first came to this site. I assure you I am not an anarchist, nor do I believe the Constitution should be ignored, and I certainly want to be secure, safe from terrorist, and protected from foreign invasion. I do however believe in Jeffersonian government, as I take it what Ron Paul too believes.

Is it your position that Ron Paul argues that to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” is not the job of government? Can you please cite the source for that, because by posting Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution you leave the clear inference that Ron Paul somehow rejects that part of the Constitution?

When I last looked Ron Paul was running as a Republican. As I have pointed out to you before, calling a dogs tail a leg does not make it so.

You’re “Rant”, and that is what I take it to be, is left with-out any substance and until you add some substance I am left only with the option that there is none, and therefore what you say can logically be dismissed for lack of credibility.

After months of bitter debate, the U.S. Senate passed a bill setting up the biggest government reorganization in more than 50 years.
The new Department of Homeland Security is expected to oversee 22 government agencies, including Immigration…

So yes, immigration has been a part of Homeland security for several years…and unless Homeland Security is doing better in its responsibility in supporting local agencies, like police and fire departments; detecting chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons ; and analyzing all sources of intelligence, than in immigration, I am certain the freedom you have given up for protection is an illusion.

Yes. Many agencies are now under the umbrella of "Homeland Security." Personally I agree with your sentiments above and although I'm speaking specifically of immigration I can only imagine how much red tape and expense is in the other agencies with little or no improvements. I know for a fact concerning immigration it's just expanded government that results in expensive fees.


Bobby

Crow

You do realize that once he became President ,Jefferson did not run a Jeffersonian administration . He admitted to the fact that the Constitution made no provisions for territorial expansion and yet made the largest single territorial expansion in US history .Given the stink he made over principles regarding the national bank the purchase was if nothing else hypocritical. Besides ;he warmed up very nicely to the concept of a national bank once he was in office. He also had no problem embracing and expanding protectionist tariffs which was completely counter to his "republican "ideals.

I will skip the whole slavery hypocrisy it would take up too much space ,but as a champion of civil liberties and unalienable rights he had no problem as the executive having arrests without warrants,habeas corpus rights violated ,coercing witnesses etc. especially during the Burr conspiracy .

Now ,don't get me wrong;I am not critical of any of these acts (except the blatant hypocrisy over slavery ). But they did run completely counter to his own philosophies. My guess is that his idealism ran counter to the realities of being in charge of the security and prosperity of the nation.He exhibited much more pragmatism than flaming champion of the permanent revolution fanaticism he preached during the French Revolution. As with much of his personal life, he was an idealist in word only .My guess is that his zeal for permanent revolution cooled after the saw the slaves in Haiti successfully revolt and the subsequent massacre of their former masters.

I would be interested to see what Jefferson's reaction would be to Timothy McVeigh's attempt to "refresh the tree of liberty" . I wonder what Ron Paul's was also. I note that he mentions "Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents ".

My guess is that those other incidents might include the fire bombing of the Branch Davidians. The attack on the Branch Davidians was the principle justification for the attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh ,Terry Nichols, and Serge Kovaleski all invoked Jefferson as inspiration. When Tim McVeigh was arrested he was wearing a T-shirt with Jefferson's famous quote 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' There are many who argue that McVeigh and to an even larger extent the KKK ;with their principles of states rights and no free blacks in the country [Jefferson's final solution was mass removal of the slaves to other lands] ,and almost no limits to the slaughter to achieve these liberties , are the natural heirs of Jefferson.

I'm not inferring it. I'm saying it straight out.

Ron Paul said in the speech you cite:

"Let me make a few observations:
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety."

Paul is clearly stating that he believes that such surveillance by the government is beyond the scope of the government's job. Continuing:

"The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good.""

Here he intimates that the government needs an "excuse" or a "cover" to maintain basic and reasonable security measures in the nations capital... and that in reality, no such requirement exists. It's all just an excuse to spy on people.

"Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security."

Here we have Ron Paul's real purpose. He wants to be able to do drugs without consequence. (He puts that thought ahead of our kids' privacy, the privacy of citizens in government buildings and on trains and in parks. Drug use is likely more important to him than privacy issues, because he places it higher on his list of bad things done by government.)

"If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers."

Here he intimates that privacy trumps national security, and that the government has no Constitutional right or responsibility to provide for any such security because privacy (which, by the way, is NOT a constitutionally-guaranteed right) is more important than national secuity. In so saying, he is ignoring Article I Section 8.

I agree. And Paul calling himself a Republican doesn't make it so. He's not. He's a libertarian/anarchist. He's a tail calling himself a leg.

What do you think now? Paul's own words show him to be exactly what I have said he is... and anti-government, anti-national-secuity anarchist. He's not in favor of a Jeffersonian-style small-but-powerful government. He's in favor of NO GOVERNMENT. And HIS rant against the government providing national security because it offends his personal sense of privacy and ability to do drug without concern for being caught is dangerous. His rant, Dark Crow, not mine. His words, not mine. Ron Paul condemns himself.

Elliot

DC,

I would also point out that in 2000, Ron Paul spoke out against the Defense Authorization Act of 2001, spoke out against action in response to the bombing of the USS Cole. In 2001, he spoke out against expanding NATO and in favor of the USA pulling out of NATO, spoke out against legislation regarding airline security upgrades and counterterrorism activities after 9/11, and blamed 9/11 on interventionism rather than on the terrorists where the blame belongs. He even quoted a sign held by a Pakistani, saying "AMERICANS, THINK! WHY YOU ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the message."

In 2002, Ron Paul introduced legislation calling for the abolishion of the FEDERAL RESERVE. This, despite the fact that Paul has admitted (somewhat reluctantly) that monetary and fiscal policy are important responsibilities of the government.

There were similar speeches in 2003 and 2004, in which Paul called for the abolishion of some important government program or other, called for the USA to cease its "interventionism" somewhere, against our involvement in international organizations, like the UN, NATO, WHO, NAFTA, WTO, etc. He is consistently against not only "big" government, but against ANY government of any size anywhere for any reason.

Sorry, DC, but Ron Paul is an anarchist nutcase.

Elliot

You're serious aren't you? I don't believe this! Are you perhaps an illustrious follower of that Turkish Philosopher, or is that Dutchman Kant more to your liking; perhaps that Scottish empiricist Hume. Whatever the case, that you haven't studied the Humanities is obvious… Words are not real; it's the meaning behind the words that escapes you! Ron Paul is not advadocating the use of illegal drugs, nor Anarchism, and to make those assumptions about the words of an elected Republican member of Congress, while standing on the floor of the Senate, is clear and plain jabberwocky.

His whole point is that there is a complete lack of privacy in the Capital and it is as fortified as any citadel that has existed! And then he raises the question…Why! Why do we no longer have the freedoms we once enjoyed, what has became of the America of the past! He answers those questions and the answer is as clear as a spring morning….intervention into the governance of other Sovereign Nations. Instead of Trading goods on a fair and open market, American government has aided American business in a bias and unfair way, America has schemed to overthrow those governments who it subjectively disapproved of…America has through deceptive means, tariffs, embargoes of even food and medicine, assassination….and done so under the vile philosophy that the ends justify the means…

In all, now the very Capital of a free nation has no Liberty at all.

So... what Ron Paul says isn't real. What he means is something else. And you and I are su[pposed to be mind readers so that we can figure out what he really means. But Bush, who speaks plainly and clearly, saying EXACTLY what he means (whether you agree with it or not) is a lousy communicator.

Hogwash.

Ron Paul is against the government because (according to him) it intervenes in the lives of its citizens and in the affairs of other countries. He is against common sense actions to protect the nation as a whole and the nation's capitol is specific. He is against involvement in any international organization, regardless of its purpose or efficacy. He is against the very existence of the Federal Reserve, which controls monetary policy for the entire country, and introduced legislation to abolish it. He is willing to ignore the powers granted Congress by the Constitution in favor of a right to privacy that is not enumerated in the Constitution or in any legislation. His own words show this.

But according to you, he doesn't really mean it. He means something else. And I am supposed to read a crystal ball to figure out what he really means.

Sorry, but I don't do fortune telling, my balls aren't made of crystal, and I am not a mind reader. I read and hear what the guy says, and given his history, I have no reason to believe that what he says is anything other than what he believes. I'm not a "filosifer" who tries to figure out what someone speaking plainly "really" means. I'm just a simple guy who studies history, and has read enough history to take people who promote bad ideas at their word.

And yes, I'm serious. No smileys or anything in my post. Ron Paul is a dangerous dude, and electing him to ANY office is dumb as heck. But especially to the office of President of the United States, and especially when we are at war. Like it or not, we ARE at war. It is a fact that cannot be changed. War is already in progress. And an anti-interventionist isolationist who believes that the military is overused and is against any international organizations is NOT the right person to run a war, even if his intent is to end that war. Perhaps ESPECIALLY if his intent is to end that war. This is no joking matter.

Hello DC:

It's not surprising that all you liberals don't like a real conservative. He's going to take away your favorite gubment programs.

excon

Yes, he does scare the hell out of international Banking, international Industrialist, particularly weapon manufactures and the Trilateral Commission; so no one need worry about him ever getting elected president- it takes their money to get elected.

I too don’t condone the use of public cameras to catch drug dealers or users; I much prefer to stop the illegal drugs before they get to the street…but that of course means to you that I advocate drug use, right. That I prefer liberty to barricaded streets, ID badges to walk around the streets means I’m an Anarchist, right.

Tom

I can assure you, I’m not about to blow anything up, and I don’t even own a gun; nor am I going to swear anything on an alter to God, as did Jefferson. Nor do I advocate going back and reliving a Jeffersonian government.:)

But what I do believe in is Jefferson’s view of the founding principles of American self-government and the inherent rights of man, and especially one man, one vote. When all of our other rights have been taken, it will be possible for the government to exclude men from the right of voting, but it is impossible to exclude them from the right of rebelling against that exclusion; and when all other rights are taken away the right of rebellion will be made perfect.