Posts Tagged With: Escape from LA

The 2016-2017 Revolt: Trump’s Police State

Lantern Timeglass Journal

Editorial Article

by Jim Lantern – Centrist, Independent (unaffiliated) Voter, Nationalist Patriot, born in Wichita Kansas in 1956, now living in Norman Oklahoma

The 2016-2017 Revolt:

Trump’s Police State

Disclaimers and Special Notes…

  • This is not to say what Hillary Clinton is planning is better or worse then what Donald Trump has in mind. Likewise the Libertarian candidates Gary Johnson (for President) and William Weld (for Vice President) favoring less government and greater social freedom – but I’m presently favoring them. Wanting to put a “businessman” into the White House, I was in favor of Trump, but conflicting statements made by him lost my trust. He could win back my vote, but it is doubtful. There is no chance of Hillary Clinton winning my vote.
  • The purpose of this editorial article is to mainly focus on some of what Trump has said – has promised to do – and how he might achieve it – for better or worse.
  • This does not mean I’m anti-police, or against law enforcement at any level. I tend to like plain clothes police detectives, and an FBI special agent I knew was a long-time friend. One other past friend I knew during some of my school years became a cop. After high school graduation he served 2 years in the U.S. Marines, and then became a police officer. He informed me that he disagreed with something he was taught at the police academy he attended. “It’s an us and them mentality. There are only two kinds of people – cops and criminals. If you are not a cop then you are a criminal. No such thing as a good citizen. There are only two kinds of criminals – those who have been caught and those yet to be caught.”
  • I’m white, and I know what it is like to be bullied by such bad cops without any just cause whatsoever. I can imagine it is much worse for black Americans.
  • I’ve also encountered many good cops – and one of them helped to save my life when I had a bicycle accident.
  • The cops I distrust the most are opposed to the U.S. Constitution – all of it but especially the Second Amendment, that only cops should have access to guns.
  • Also of concern, those cops who are opposed to Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Law for the right to use deadly force in self defense. The Norman Oklahoma Chief of Police believes that anyone who is willing to use deadly force in self defense is suffering from a mental illness, as a very Orwellian kind of belief on his part to make it a mental illness. Makes no difference to him that Oklahoma Law makes it legal. Oklahoma State law says a person must have “reasonable fear of imminent peril.” Only then does that person have the right to “stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm…” So he is a cop who will not support laws he disagrees with. He happens to be an African-American and a liberal Democrat from another state, by the way. It’s not just an anti-gun issue. It includes any weapon or means to take another life. His hypocrisy is it is wrong for anyone other than military and police to use deadly force.
  • There are also many police officers who have undermined the so-called “war against illegal drugs” by being members of LEAP – Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, wanting to legalize all drugs currently illegal. Most of those people are Libertarians who served in the U.S. military before before becoming cops. Some members are with the DEA, and a few members are current or former cops and military personnel in other countries – especially Mexico, Central and South America.

Trump Quotes…

  • Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country.
  • Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims.
  • I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.
  • The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.

~ Donald Trump, Republican Presidential Candidate Election 2016.

Trump has repeated that promise several times with only slight variations. All emphasize January 20 as the day he will abruptly put an end to crime and terrorism within the United States. I believe the only way he can keep that promise is to declare Martial Law [“military government involving the suspension of ordinary law”] and to nationalize the police. I believe he intends to do both. “Martial Law is the exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. It is is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos.” Not just to end crime and terrorism within the United States, but also to maintain total control of the population – long term – 4 years or 8 years, or end term limits to be President (or dictator) for much longer – as long as he is able to do so – then the title to be passed on to a member of his family. Of course, he will use this as a means to take control of the immigration issues too.

For further justification, include a natural disaster such as a major hurricane with significant flooding to involve FEMA. Include a deadly virus spreading across the United States to include the CDC.

Keep in mind, most businesses are run like a dictatorship, not a democracy. Trump is a businessman. He is in total control of his business empire. It is the only way of life and management he knows – has experience with. It would be natural to apply that to the entire country.

Excerpts from The Hill, 29 July 2016…

  • Trump would give back military gear to police.
  • Donald Trump says he would allow police access to military-grade equipment if elected, reversing limits imposed by President Obama last year after civil unrest in Ferguson, Mo.
  • Obama last year implemented new limits on sending military supplies to local law enforcement from federal agencies or with federal funds. The partial ban covers tracked armored vehicles, armed aircraft, bayonets and guns, and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher.
  • The gear is often too costly for police departments to purchase on their own.
  • Other equipment such as drones, firearms and riot gear must be approved by local governments.

Excerpts from Real News Right Now – Politics (4 weeks ago)…

Trump Announces Plan to Federalize American Police Departments.

  • NEW YORK, Ny. – Less than twenty-four hours after accepting his party’s nomination and delivering the longest acceptance speech in nearly four decades, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled his plan to restore law and order in America, which he bleakly described as being under siege by illegal immigrants, the Islamic State, and race-related violence.
  • “We’re going to put an end to that,” Trump said during a post-convention interview with The New York Times. “We’re going to federalize every police department in this country. We’re going to eliminate the red tape and it’s going to give police the ability to do their jobs effectively and, believe me, this is something that’s going to happen within my first one hundred days in office.”
  • Under Trump’s plan, city and state police departments would fall under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security and would therefore be granted broad authorities to enforce the law. “They’re going to receive the best weapons, training, and resources this country has to offer,” Trump promised. “We’re going to put an end to jurisdictional restrictions and increase police capabilities in terms of surveillance and the use of deadly force. Not only that, we’re going to eliminate this so-called standard for probable cause; it’s very limiting and, frankly, outdated. Our police forces are going to have much more freedom in terms of who they can arrest and why.”
  • Trump compared his proposal for a federalized police force to similar operations in countries like Brazil and Mexico where armor-clad federal police are able to travel freely between cities and counties and have the support of military-grade vehicles and weaponry. “It’s going to be very similar to what you see in Rio de Janeiro where they have a very serious gang problem,” Trump explained. “You look at Chicago where they have dozens of people being killed every week. Well, I will tell you, we’re going to get very tough in Chicago and in places like that. We’re going to – in my first hundred days – we’re going to send several thousand police into that city and clean it up like you wouldn’t believe and, you know what, people will be very happy.”
  • In a highly anticipated acceptance speech delivered on the final night of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday, Donald Trump spoke of a nation in crisis, plagued by the looming threat of terrorism and domestic crime, and vowed, as president, to “restore law and order.”

Law enforcement, police – mainly uniformed police (not so much plain clothes detectives) – are already taking action. Police have reported the obvious, that crime statistics prove low-income and no-income people are more likely to engage in crime. Therefore, police are targeting low-income and no-income people.

Landlords can’t discriminate based on race – such as against black people (mainly African Americans). Landlords can discriminate based on level of income. Although the majority of low-income and no-income people are black, I do not believe they are specifically being targeted by landlords and police. The targeting does not discriminate based on race or nationality. “Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.”

For several years, police have been pushing the Crime Free Lease Addendum. It violates the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights . . . The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. In conflict with those, the Crime Free Lease Addendum states that a tenant only need be “suspected” of any kind of illegal activity. No proof is required. No arrest is required. No conviction is required. The tenant can be evicted immediately (3-day eviction notice) for only being suspected of criminal activity – especially sale or use of illegal drugs.

Likewise, police have been pushing the “minimum 3x income requirement” now spreading across the country. For example, for a $500 per month apartment, a tenant must have a minimum net income of $1500 per month. It shuts out some people on Social Security Disability, Social Security Retirement, Unemployment Benefits, and Welfare, as well as part time workers – many of whom are college students struggling to survive.

“Where do they expect us to live?” a low-income lady asked when forced out of her apartment.

“Loss of affordable housing” is now the “Number One cause of homelessness in the United States” accounting for “51% of homeless people” including families with children. In some cities it has become illegal to be homeless. Further, illegal for any charity or person to give any kind of aid to homeless people. They are put in jail, then shipped to a few former federal prisons converted to housing homeless people. The City of Houston Police pioneered the “HOT” – Homeless Outreach Teams, and a separate legal system “Homeless Court” with a special judge to handle homeless people charged with certain kinds of crime. Diversion is to Public Housing (city as landlord) or Section 8 Housing (under private landlords) with HUD paying up to two thirds of the rent of an apartment or house, of which that money comes from taxpayers. It’s a kind of recycling of low-income and no-income people, as far as housing is concerned.

In 1994, at a Rotary Club meeting, Newt Gingrich said, “Welfare people should be forced to live in tent cities until the earn the right to live in normal housing.” Newt “the Grinch” Gingrich, former presidential candidate, is now one of Donald Trump’s top advisers.

Trump does have some experience with real estate, including housing – he is a landlord.

Alternate History imagined in a dystopian future in past science fiction action movies…

Introduction to Escape from New York:

Escape from New York – Wikipedia article.

I like the basic idea of banishing all major criminals to a location from which escape is not possible and from which there is no return. Likewise taking away their U.S. citizenship and deporting them. I am opposed to warehousing criminals in jails or prisons at the expense of taxpayers – which amounts to punishing taxpayers. Cost should be paid for by other means, such as forced labor producing products to be sold from which profits cover the cost. I strongly favor diversion and rehabilitation programs, but if those fail then I favor banishment – deportation, or the death penalty for extreme cases.

Sequel to Escape from New York – Introduction to Escape from LA:

Escape from LA – Wikipedia article.

The “wall” Trump will build . . . under the claim to keep them out . . . will also keep us in?


Alternate History by science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein, and the warning about United States elections 2012 and 2016…


Excerpts from Wikipedia article…

  • “If This Goes On—” is a science fiction short novel by Robert A. Heinlein, first serialized in 1940 in Astounding Science-Fiction and revised and expanded for inclusion in the 1953 collection Revolt in 2100. The novel shows what might happen to Christianity in the United States given mass communications, applied psychology, and a hysterical populace. The novel is part of Heinlein’s Future History series.
  • The story is set in a future theocratic American society, ruled by the latest in a series of fundamentalist Christian “Prophets.” The First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President (elected in 2012), then dictator (no elections were held in 2016 or later).

There has been a threat from extreme far right conservative Christian fundamentalists to establish a theocracy in the United States. Even so, the present greater threat comes not from conservatives or liberals, but from statists – who favor a totalitarian government – comparable to the government in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. I believe that to be the danger if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States. She is not a liberal progressive Democrat. I have no doubt she is a statist. As for religion, however, I do not believe the present threat is coming from Christians. The obvious threat is from Muslims – mainly Sunni Muslims – within which is “radical Islam” – seeking to establish a Caliphate: “A caliphate is an Islamic state. It’s led by a caliph, who is a political and religious leader who is a successor (caliph) to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. His power and authority is absolute.”

The following paragraphs have been excerpted from the 1986 Baen Book printing of Robert A. Heinlein’s novel titled “Revolt in 2100” –from the story titled “If This Goes On—”:

  • Successful revolution is big business – make no mistake about that. In a modern, complex, and highly industrialized state, revolution is not accomplished by a handful of conspirators whispering around a guttering candle in a deserted ruin. It requires countless personnel, supplies, modern machinery and modern weapons. And to handle these factors successfully there must be loyalty, secrecy, and superlative organization.
  • I was kept busy but my work was fill-in work, since I was awaiting assignment. I had time to dig into the library and I looked up Tom Paine, which led me to Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and others – a whole new world was opened up to me. I had trouble at first in admitting the possibility of what I read; I think perhaps  of all things a police state  can do to its citizens, distorting history is possibly the most pernicious. For example, I learned for the first time that the United States had not been ruled by a bloodthirsty emissary of Satan before the First Prophet arose in his wrath and cast him out – but had been a community of free men deciding their own affairs by peaceful consent. I don’t mean that the first republic had been a scriptural paradise, but it hadn’t been anything like what I had learned in school.
  • For the first time in my life I was reading things which had not been approved by the Prophet’s censors, and the impact on my mind was devastating. Sometimes I would glance over my shoulder to see who was watching me, frightened in spit of myself. I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy . . . censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
  • My thoughts did not then fall into syllogisms; my head was filled with an inchoate spate of new ideas, each more exciting than the last. I discovered that travel between the planets, almost a myth in my world, had not stopped because the First Prophet had forbidden it as a sin against the omnipotence of God; it had ceased because it had gone into the red financially and the Prophet’s government would not subsidize it. There was even an implied statement that the “infidels” (I still used that word in my mind) still sent out an occasional research ship and that there were human beings even now on Mars and Venus.
  • Maybe someday the United States would have space ships again.

A message from Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone…

Excerpts from V for Vendetta movie…

Excerpts from Wikipedia about the United States government – such as it is…

Excerpts from Wikipedia – Forms of Government

  • Countries with monarchy attributes are those where a family or group of families (rarely another type of group), called the royalty, represents national identity, with power traditionally assigned to one of its individuals, called the monarch, who mostly rule kingdoms. The actual role of the monarch and other members of royalty varies from purely symbolical (crowned republic) to partial and restricted (constitutional monarchy) to completely despotic (absolute monarchy). Traditionally and in most cases, the post of the monarch is inherited, but there are also elective monarchies where the monarch is elected.
  • Societies with aristocracy attributes are traditionally controlled and organised by a small class of privileged people, with no intervention from the most part of society; this small elite is defined as sharing some common trait.
  • Rule by the wealthy; a system wherein governance is indebted to, dependent upon or heavily influenced by the desires of the rich. Plutocratic influence can alter any form government. For instance, in a republic, if a significant number of elected representative positions are dependent upon financial support from wealthy sources, then it is a plutocratic-republic.
  • Societies with despotism attributes are ruled by a single entity with absolute power, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regular mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for implicit threat). That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to “rule in the fashion of despots”.
  • Autocracy – Power resides in the hands of one single person. That person may be, for example, an absolute monarch or a dictator. The Roman Republic made dictators to lead during times of war; the Roman dictators only held power for a small time. In modern times, an autocrat’s rule is that not stopped by any rules of law, constitutions, or other social and political institutions. After World War II, many governments in Latin America, Asia, and Africa were ruled by autocratic governments. Examples of autocrats include Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler and Gamal Abdul Nasser.
  • Oligarchy – Rule by a small number of people. Differently from aristocracy, these people do not rule because they share a common attribute (strength, intelligence, specialization, honour, etc.) for they are not a class. It is a specific group that usually constitute the top sectors of the government, although they still may be religious, military or noble leaders for example.
  • Countries with monarchy attributes are those where a family or group of families (rarely another type of group), called the royalty, represents national identity, with power traditionally assigned to one of its individuals, called the monarch, who mostly rule kingdoms. The actual role of the monarch and other members of royalty varies from purely symbolical (crowned republic) to partial and restricted (constitutional monarchy) to completely despotic (absolute monarchy). Traditionally and in most cases, the post of the monarch is inherited, but there are also elective monarchies where the monarch is elected.
  • Absolute monarchy – A traditional and historical system where the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government. Many nations of Europe during the Middle Ages were absolute monarchies. Modern examples include mainly Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman.
  • Constitutional monarchy (also called parliamentary monarchy) – The monarch’s powers are limited by law or by a formal constitution, usually assigning them to those of the head of state. Many modern developed countries, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Japan, are constitutional monarchy systems.
  • Crowned republic – A form of government where the monarch (and family) is an official ceremonial entity with no political power. The royal family and the monarch are intended to represent the country and may perform speeches or attend in important ceremonial events as a symbolical guide to the people, but hold no actual power in decision-making, appointments, etc.
  • Republican attributes – A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter” (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited.
  • Republic – Rule by a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people. A common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.
  • Constitutional republic – Rule by a government whose powers are limited by law or a formal constitution, and chosen by a vote amongst at least some sections of the populace (Ancient Sparta was in its own terms a republic, though most inhabitants were disenfranchised). Republics that exclude sections of the populace from participation will typically claim to represent all citizens (by defining people without the vote as “non-citizens”). Examples include the United States, South Africa, India, etc.
  • Democratic republic – A republic form of government where the country is considered a “public matter” (Latin: res publica), not a private concern or property of rulers/3rd world, and where offices of states are subsequently, directly or indirectly, elected or appointed – rather than inherited – where all eligible citizens have an equal say in the local and national decisions that affect their lives.
  • Parliamentary republic – A republic, like India, Singapore and Poland, with an elected head of state, but where the head of state and head of government are kept separate with the head of government retaining most executive powers, or a head of state akin to a head of government, elected by a parliament.
  • Federal republic – A federal union of states or provinces with a republican form of government. Examples include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, and Switzerland.
  • Islamic Republic – Republics governed in accordance with Islamic law. Examples include Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
  • Socialist republic – Countries like China and Vietnam are meant to be governed for and by the people, but with no direct elections. The term People’s Republic is used to differentiate themselves from the earlier republic of their countries before the people’s revolution, like the Republic of China.
  • Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term “federalism” is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
  • Federalism – Rule by a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.
  • Federal monarchy – A federal monarchy is a federation of states with a single monarch as overall head of the federation, but retaining different monarchs, or a non-monarchical system of government, in the various states joined to the federation.
  • Federal republic – A federal union of states or provinces with a republican form of government. Examples include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, and Switzerland.


Billy Joel, We Didn’t Start the Fire…

+ + +

Categories: Civil Rights, Democracy, Editorial Articles, Election 2016, Federal Government, Government, Housing, Human Rights, Injustice, Justice, Law Enforcement, Laws, Military, National Defense, National Security, Police, Political Issues, Politics, Terrorism, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Government, U.S. Military, U.S. Voters, United States of America, War, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at