The Police State: A Ghastly Product of the Left (and Right)

The modern police state has been brewing for a long time. The framework and infrastructure to support it was put in place well before 9/11.

The two major political parties in the US are both equally responsible for allowing the constitution and bill of rights to be rolled up and filed away under 'blue laws' not to be taken seriously. In fact, if you dare to mention them in polite company, you may be laughed at.

While there is plenty of blame to go around, I have to give special credit to the current administration, the Democrats and the 'left' in general for stepping up the pace in recent years and transforming what ought to be our civil servants into our master overseers.

Even with such a dramatic deterioration of our society, in the face of these transgressions, I have yet to see a concerted effort or even popular will to begin to roll back the obvious overreaches of government at every level.


The Police State: A Ghastly Product of the Left

There really isn’t much difference between the Cheney-Kristol neocons of the Left and the Obama-Pelosi-Clinton leftists, when you get right down to it.

And I refer to leftists or to the Left rather than using the common term “liberals,” because they are not liberal. For me, “liberal” describes someone who advocates liberating people, someone who believes in freedom.

The Left consists of people who believe otherwise, even the opposite of genuine liberalism and liberation. They want laws and regulations which tie people down and chain them up and restrain their freedom.

And what else but a police state could describe the Left’s desired situation of a State armed to the teeth with a totally disarmed and defenseless civilian population?

In my view, deep down, many people on the Left delight in seeing S.W.A.T. teams invade a small business to “crack down” on people who do their bankingwith “suspiciously” small amounts of cash, or those who apparently didn’t send the IRS enough of their earnings.

By inflicting door-to-door searches in Watertown, officials were really telling people that all residents themselves were suspects in harboring an escaped suspect, and they needed to be ordered out of their homes and the homes searched to prove their innocence.

In contrast, given an advisory in New Hampshire, residents would have had their weapons available, ready and waiting. Had Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attempted to invade or break into someone’s home there, the resident more likely would have fought back, or at least brandished a weapon in defense and/or shot the home invader.

Which brings me to the dreaded gun control issue. Following the Sandy Hook School shooting, in which 20 children and 7 adults were murdered by a deranged psychopath, the push to further disarm the people in the already fifth strictest anti-gun state went into overdrive.

No matter how hard rational people attempt to get it through numbskulls — that violent criminals don’t care about gun laws just as they don’t care about laws against murder — the people on the Left continue on their legislative rampages to further disarm law-abiding people and make them defenseless.

The atrocious ObamaCare is the “thrill up the legs” for those passionate police statists on the Left. We already can see the excitement in the faces of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, just the thought of thousands new IRS agents and their S.W.A.T. teams going out and harassing and terrorizing innocent Americans in enforcing the tax-fine-thefts of ObamaCare’s dictatorial mandates and restrictions.

After ObamaCare implodes as it was obviously intended to do, Dictator Obama will get the masses to beg him to get his desired “Single Payer” plan through, which will lead to what he and others on the Left really dream of, their beloved SovietCare.

Alas, too many of today’s “liberals” are not really liberal. They oppose freedom and choice in medical care, they support the State’s power to invade private property without suspicion or probable cause, and just too many people now wholeheartedly condemn the thought of cutting the chains of enslavement by bureaucrats and liberating the people from the imprisonment of the State.

There are plenty other police state policies pushed by the Left, such as NDAA indefinite detention and Common Core, but I think I’ve made my point.

reply to post by greencmp


Nice thread, it's going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl with our, let's just say "progressive" members here.

Look bottom line is there are millions of people in America who just want to be taken care of instead of having the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. And because there are so many people like that we have the political/police State now. Let's face it, freedom is hard work and sadly many people are just not up for it.

I agree with not calling them liberals, there is nothing "liberal" about the "hate crime", "hate speech", "thought police" society they want to enforce on everyone. As for obamacare it's worse than the Soviet system. At least in the USSR you weren't charged for it, obamacare is more insidious. It forces the populous to buy a product from a private company or pay a tax or go to jail.

Who in their right mind thinks this is acceptable? If the government can do this what can't they do? Nothing. The government can do anything and everything for you, to you, and with you, it wants. This is the world the left wanted and now they have it.

reply to post by greencmp





It seems to have to do with the "praxis" of "governing" the people rather than those stupid "abstract" ideas found in the bill of rights. And "democracy", the force and right of the majority in power, rather than a republic.

Right now we see the progressives with their billy clubs out trying to subdue one branch of the power division not under their control and claiming the right to do so based on an idea of "democratic mandate" over the objections of the constitutional safeguards of a power division.

The Constitutionalist party, The Tea Party, The Libertarian Party ect, are seen by most of these entrenched as simply emanations of the last wisps of these "freedom ideologues". A noisome chattering from ghosts of the past that can be overcome through the "democratic" processes of defeating their enemies. Calling the republicans a party "held hostage" by the Tea Party is a good sign however.

You need to take the right out of your title because it is misleading. The article is nothing but a right wing whinefest.

The Police State: A Ghastly Product of the Left

That's a joke the police state is a direct result of the Patriot Act. And it wasn't the Democrats that pushed it through in the middle of the night.

Here's the part I found funny.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” not the “right of the government to keep and bear arms.” Sadly, given their love for the State, the people on the Left seem to have that backwards.

Somebody didn't read about the history of the second amendment before writing this article.


In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second amendment was under attack long before this administration took office.

reply to post by buster2010

You misunderstand me a little I think. It is not surprising though as I am essentially saying that the 'right' (meaning mainstream party Republicans) are, in fact, a faction of the 'left', ideologically speaking, and share the same statist philosophies even if their sociological agenda differs.

In an attempt to make this clear, I put up a thread which breaks down the political spectrum more appropriately:

Circular Thinking - Graphic Analogs of the Political Spectrum - An Ideology Refresher

Carreau
reply to post by greencmp

 

Nice thread, it's going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl with our, let's just say "progressive" members here.

Ha. Progressive, yeah right. I decided to call myself progressive after ditching both the Republican and Democrat parties. Progressive means making progress towards better lives for people.

reply to post by buster2010


Well although the patriot act was passed by Republicans, Democrats have been doing their part by restricting free speech against whatever they deem their current agenda. They have also been harassing and generalizing religious people and whites and men.

In addition, liberals have been extremely hostile towards those who are not "intelligent" lately to the extent that it is almost engaging in class warfare against the poor, to be honest.

I went to a liberal arts college, I've experienced all these things first-hand, they are very hostile people at the moment.

I even went back there to hang out the other day and they are even more hostile than ever. The current college students are not thinking for themselves, nor do they understand what they are doing, and if someone brings up a legitimate point they start hissing at them and threatening them basically.

It is no better than religious zealotry.

darkbake

Carreau
reply to post by greencmp

 

Nice thread, it's going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl with our, let's just say "progressive" members here.

Ha. Progressive, yeah right. I decided to call myself progressive after ditching both the Republican and Democrat parties. Progressive means making progress towards better lives for people.

I am keeping an open mind with respect to the term 'progressive'. I have heard many people attribute many different ideological principals to it. I doubt that most who assign it to themselves have the constitution in mind when they do.

That said, considering how unpopular the guiding principals of this country are, if the term could possibly be interpreted to mean 'alternative' then yes, a progressive could be considered pro-constitution.

reply to post by greencmp


Hmm... well... I'm not supporting either party at the moment. So I don't know what to say - I think that freedoms are important (which neither party seems to think) and I think that it is important to allow people to make progress if they want to, and to collect taxes in order to have a decent education system and infrastructure, all kind of ridiculous stuff like that.

People should be free to practice various religions without being harassed, should be free to be either gender or any race without being harassed, stuff like that.

I also like the idea of small businesses, or at least some way to make progress as an individual without being a slave - like having some say in your work... Corporate America ends up being very, very soul-less.

----------

However some people think that these things happen in cycles, if that is the case, we are entering some kind of totalitarian cycle that will end at some point, I dunno -

----------

My mom once said that there really is no difference between right wing and left wing extremists because they both can become fairly totalitarian, in different ways.

reply to post by buster2010



Yea this article was certainly written with its readers in mind.

We need to keep an eye on both parties here. I believe that what the op was referring to when he included the "right" in the title.


Who and How they Voted on Patriot Act Extension

It really isn't a matter of "Left vs. Right" as to who is the most oppressive. That might be reserved for whichever faction is holding the reigns of power more firmly at any given time. Both of those are just wings supporting the authoritarian ideology people are clutching firmly at this time. Those wings are a distraction. We should be examining the "vertical" of authoritarian vs. personal autonomy and be willing to allow others to live as they choose and not how we may wish them to conform to our perceived notion of what we demand of them.

Yeah, we have a Police State well underway in the makings. Both "sides" can take us further down that slope. Quit looking left and right and just stop the oppression, including your own.

Erongaricuaro
It really isn't a matter of "Left vs. Right" as to who is the most oppressive. That might be reserved for whichever faction is holding the reigns of power more firmly at any given time. Both of those are just wings supporting the authoritarian ideology people are clutching firmly at this time. Those wings are a distraction. We should be examining the "vertical" of authoritarian vs. personal autonomy and be willing to allow others to live as they choose and not how we may wish them to conform to our perceived notion of what we demand of them.

Yeah, we have a Police State well underway in the makings. Both "sides" can take us further down that slope. Quit looking left and right and just stop the oppression, including your own.

Hear, hear!

reply to post by Erongaricuaro



But...but In have the right to oppress myself! LOL

reply to post by buster2010


Buster,
sorry that I'm late to the party, but when quoting SCOTUS cases, you might want to go read up on cases within the last 100 years. In the latest case, District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, 2008, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008, the SCOTUS reaffirmed the general understanding of the Second Amendment:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

Source: Website for the Supreme Court of the United States
Cheers,

reply to post by darkbake

Well although the patriot act was passed by Republicans, Democrats have been doing their part by restricting free speech against whatever they deem their current agenda. They have also been harassing and generalizing religious people and whites and men.

The first part of this is right. Obama did sign the no free speech zones. The rest is pretty much crap. The Obama is against Christians is BS. When people complained that he was against Christians never took time to look at the laws that were passed long before he took office.

LetsGoViking
reply to post by buster2010

 

Buster,
sorry that I'm late to the party, but when quoting SCOTUS cases, you might want to go read up on cases within the last 100 years. In the latest case, District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, 2008, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008, the SCOTUS reaffirmed the general understanding of the Second Amendment:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

Source: Website for the Supreme Court of the United States
Cheers,

I posted those cases to show just how long the second amendment has been under attack.

Logarock
reply to post by buster2010

 

Yea this article was certainly written with its readers in mind.

We need to keep an eye on both parties here. I believe that what the op was referring to when he included the "right" in the title.


Who and How they Voted on Patriot Act Extension

You it was written to appease the people that believe it. Yes Obama did pass the extension on the Patriot act but if Bush hadn't passed it then it wouldn't need an extension.

buster2010

Logarock
reply to post by buster2010

 

Yea this article was certainly written with its readers in mind.

We need to keep an eye on both parties here. I believe that what the op was referring to when he included the "right" in the title.


Who and How they Voted on Patriot Act Extension

You it was written to appease the people that believe it. Yes Obama did pass the extension on the Patriot act but if Bush hadn't passed it then it wouldn't need an extension.

So, you support the patriot act as it now stands?

darkbake
My mom once said that there really is no difference between right wing and left wing extremists because they both can become fairly totalitarian, in different ways

Your mum's right! In the end, any ideology will succumb to fascism and eventually compromise itself in the name of total control.

There's nothing left or right about the police state and totalitarianism has historically happened on both sides of the fence look at NK or the Soviets. Both sides are doing it because the public wants to be tough on crime. There's no conspiracy here, we're getting exactly what we ask for on a national level. Someone steals something? Give them an outrageous prison sentence as punishment, most even hope the person suffers several prison rapes. Someone becomes a habitual thief? 3 strikes laws.

As a society we're extremely vindictive towards criminals and that's mirrored in our anti crime laws. It creates harsher and harsher prison sentences, criminalizes more actions, and makes the prisons worse. Throw in the privatization of prisons and it's exacerbated as there's now a financial incentive to stay the course. Anyone who speaks out against the incarceration portion of the issue is seen as soft on crime or weak and gets thrown out of office. If someone speaks out against arming the police and their militarization the person is vilified for not giving the police the strongest most protective equipment out there and blamed for every cop death out there (which have been declining per capita for decades).

Both sides are doing this and both are equally guilty. Earlier someone blamed Obama for the NDAA, and they're right he is to blame. But so is Bush who initiated it. So is Romney who said he would expand it. So is McCain who supports it. So is Hillary who backs it. So is Pelosi who passed it. The entire establishment is to blame for that law and many others. Even the few who are against it are guilty because they've failed to prevent it or even make it a major national issue.

If you want to change this, don't focus on trying to expose some conspiracy. Start taking it to state and local debates and convincing people that we're only harming ourselves with draconian laws and militarized police. The vast majority of people support these things. This current state of affairs is a result of getting EXACTLY what we have asked for as a collective.