The Police State Conspiracy
an Indictment

 
[4400 words]
[HEARING -- DAY 2]

                THE POLICE STATE CONSPIRACY 
                    - an INDICTMENT -
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

         Presented before the GRAND JURY of LIBERTY
               On this SECOND DAY of HEARING

                  The PEOPLE v NWO Et Al

       Defendant 1 - NWO ("Corporate Globalist Elite")
       Defendant 2 - MEDIA ("Corporate Mass Media")
       Defendant 3 - GOVT ("National Government Leadership")

            ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~

    ___________________________________________________
    |                                                 |
    |  Section 1: The erosion of civil liberties,     |
    |             and  why that's important           |
    |                 ( continued... )                |
    |_________________________________________________|


Note to non-USA readers: Again, as was mentioned on Day 1, please 
keep in mind that policies and "solutions" which originate in the US 
in these days of globalization have a habit of showing up elsewhere 
afterwards.   


1.4   The Bill of Rights: under comprehensive assault by Defendants
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   AMENDMENT 1 - Restriction on Powers of Congress
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
   religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 
   abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
   right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
   the GOVT for a redress of grievances.

We have already seen how FUNDAMENTALISTS, assisted by Defendants, 
have been chipping away at the separation-of-church-and-state 
doctrine, for the express purpose of imposing a restrictive moral 
code on the nation.  This is in direct contradiction to the letter 
and intent of the Constitution, and serves to "chill" public 
discussion and legislative deliberations.  The purpose of these 
maneuvers, as we shall see, is ultimately to undermine additional 
civil liberties, by benefit of the repressive FUNDAMENTALIST climate 
thus created. 

In particular, a conspiracy is afoot to abridge freedom of speech and 
the press, a conspiracy being pursued in that newest and most dynamic 
domain of speech and press: the Internet (aka the "net").  Internet 
provides a channel for the mass dissemination of information and 
viewpoints that is outside MEDIA control, and net usage is growing 
exponentially - ultimately the net is likely to become society's 
_primary_ information infrastructure, subsuming television and cable 
broadcasting.  The NWO perceive, and rightly so, that the net is a 
serious potential threat to their continued control over the public 
mind, and thus a threat to their continued political hegemony and 
domination of GOVT.  It is no surprise that a broad-based and well-
financed net censorship effort has been launched by the NWO and its 
MEDIA and GOVT co-conspirators.

                   -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
                             SIDEBARS

In the 20's there was a battle.  Radio was coming along, everyone 
knew it wasn't a marketable product like shoes. It's gonna be 
regulated and the question was, who was gonna get hold of it? Well, 
there were groups, (church groups, labor unions were extremely weak 
and split then, and some student groups)... who tried to organise to 
get radio to become a kind of a public interest phenomenon; but they 
were just totally smashed. I mean it was completely commercialized.
            - Noam Chomsky


The big effect which I still haven't mentioned and the one that 
worries me most is what the corporate world is telling us they have 
in mind. And what they are telling us they have in mind is taking the 
whole thing [cyberspace] over and using it as a technique of 
domination and control.
            - Noam Chomsky

                             SIDEBARS
                   -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-

The leading edge of this conspiratorial undertaking is being pushed 
by MEDIA, by means of a defamation campaign against the net, mis-
portraying this PEOPLE's media as a hotbed of perversion and 
terrorism.  Sensationalized stories appear regularly about 
pornography and bomb recipes being available on the net, and of the 
net being used by hackers, terrorists and hate groups.  This 
defamation campaign, assisted by vocal FUNDAMENTALIST complaints, has 
created a political climate in which support of net censorship has 
become popular among legislators, politicians, and much of the public 
- not just in the US, but worldwide.

In 1996, assisted by the well-timed publication of Time magazine's 
infamous "Cyberporn" propaganda article, GOVT passed the Computer 
Decency Act (CDA), a frontal assault on net freedom of speech, press, 
and (virtual) assembly.  The rhetoric of the bill's proponents was 
about "protecting children", but the enforcement details of the bill 
reveal its true intent.  

Besides criminalizing the original posting of "offending" messages, 
strong sanctions were prescribed against any net service provider 
whose equipment stored or transmitted such messages.  What this would 
mean in practice is that service providers, in order to avoid 
criminal liability, would be forced to monitor the traffic through 
their equipment: they would need to review postings the same way 
newspaper editors review material prior to publication.  This places 
a severe administrative burden on service providers, and threatens to 
dramatically curtail the open exchange of messages on the net - thus 
facilitating MEDIA's continued control over public access to 
information and views in the cyberspace era.

The CDA was so blatantly unconstitutional that even the GOVT-
appointed Supreme Court couldn't stomach it, and rightly overturned 
it - thus highlighting the anti-constitutional intent behind the 
conspiracy.  Completely undeterred, the conspirators continue their 
endeavor by other and diverse means.  A modified version of CDA is 
being pursued, craftily worded to evade Supreme-Court rejection; 
overly-strict copyright and libel laws are being proposed, which 
would impose, as did the CDA, crippling administrative burdens on 
service providers; alarmist warnings of net-supported terrorism are 
being raised on Capital Hill by the GOVT's FBI.  

The continuation of open communication on the net by US citizens, by 
such means as mailing lists and bulletin boards, is under dire threat 
from this conspiracy on the part of the DEFENDANTS, and in many 
countries censorship has already been imposed or is being seriously 
considered.  As the world moves into the digital age, and cyberspace  
becomes the universal medium of information and communication, the 
NWO is sparing no expense to maintain its tight control over public 
perceptions and opinions, and thus over politics, GOVT, and society 
in general.


   AMENDMENT 2 - Right to Bear Arms
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of 
   a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
   shall not be infringed.

The situation in the US regarding guns, gun control, and violent 
crime is bizarre, nearly as bizarre as the range of public attitudes 
on those issues.  The widespread availability of everything from 
handguns to assault rifles is a clear and present danger to public 
safety, and the use of guns in robberies and assaults in the US far 
exceeds that anywhere else in the developed world.  The trauma wards 
in urban US hospitals deal with more gunshot wounds in a single week 
than the hospitals in most advanced countries might see in a year.

The majority of the public, and most responsible criminologists, are 
in favor of effective gun-control legislation which respects 
constitutionally protected legitimate uses (sport, self-defense, 
etc).  Yet GOVT refuses to implement meaningful gun control, 
allegedly because of "strong political pressure" from the National 
Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun lobby groups.  But is this 
a credible defense of GOVT inaction?  Is the NRA really that 
powerful?

I suggest to the jury that the "NRA defense" is a sham.  If GOVT were 
so intimidated by popular pressure groups it would never have passed 
NAFTA over the vocal objections of organized labor, and it would not 
so readily dismantle welfare programs, thus alienating those millions 
of voters unable to find work. GOVT is not nearly so politically 
timid as it pretends to be.  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I 
suggest that we need to look elsewhere to explain GOVT's refusal to 
deal with the problem of too many guns loose in society. The plain 
fact is that effective gun control would be a politically _popular_ 
move, the stridently vocal NRA notwithstanding.

In fact, if we look at the broad spectrum of GOVT activity, both 
overt and covert, what we see is a pattern of _encouraging_ the 
maximal presence of guns and violence in society.  Besides the 
refusal to adequately regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession 
of firearms, GOVT also tolerates the existence of armed militia 
groups who openly advocate armed rebellion to GOVT authority, and 
permits organized urban gangs to operate which use automatic weapons 
to maintain their drug-distribution territories.  

Why does GOVT tolerate such blatant lawlessness?  If some leftist or 
black-power organization were to arm itself with automatic weapons 
and advocate violent rebellion or engage in drug trafficking, all 
haste would be employed to infiltrate the group, secure incriminating 
evidence, and prosecute the leadership on conspiracy charges.  Why is 
GOVT so seemingly inept with respect to (right-wing) militias and 
(apolitical) urban gangs?  Why is it, by default, encouraging these 
blatant threats to public peace and order?

Furthermore, GOVT encouragement of such groups goes beyond merely 
tolerating them.  There is persuasive evidence, which you will be 
shown later in this indictment, of covert GOVT involvement in the 
drug trade, in supplying weapons to urban gangs, in permitting 
clandestine fraternization among military personnel and militia 
leaders, and in making surplus military facilities available for use 
in militia training exercises.  In addition, one can reasonably 
assume that militias and urban gangs are being actively monitored by 
GOVT informers, extending still further GOVT complicity.

This comprehensive encouragement of violent factions accomplishes 
several objectives in the NWO conspiracy to install a police state, 
and we will be returning to this topic frequently during this 
indictment.  As regards Amendment 2, the "right to bear arms", I 
suggest to you that the ultimate consequence of GOVT policy is to 
create a situation where overwhelming public pressure will build for 
decisive GOVT action against firearm ownership, and against the armed 
organizations.  

In other words, GOVT is intentionally allowing the situation to get 
out of hand, so that later it can "respond to public pressure" and 
eliminate Amendment 2 altogether.  As you recall from Day 1 of these 
proceedings, this is a standard NWO/GOVT tactic: the exploitation of 
existing factions in the pursuit of NWO objectives - the implicit 
recruitment of such factions as dupe accomplices in NWO projects.  
Earlier the accomplice was the FUNDAMENTALISTS, and the project was 
undermining free speech and inculcating a repressive ideology; in 
this case the dupes are militias and urban gangs, and the project has 
many objectives, one of which is the undermining of Amendment 2.

I suggest to you that the Waco episode can be seen as an ominous 
omen, a microcosm of how GOVT will ultimately deal with militias and 
gangs.  When the time to act comes, after public polarization on 
firearms has reached a fever pitch, MEDIA can be expected to launch a 
demonization campaign against these groups.  "Revelations" and 
"leaked documents" will "unexpectedly reveal" the extent and perfidy 
of the "domestic terrorist threat".  

Individual leaders of militias and gangs will suddenly become 
familiar faces on television screens (like Saddam), and it will be 
"discovered" that they have psychotic yet charismatic personalities, 
perverted sex practices and shocking drug habits, hidden bank 
accounts and racist attitudes, and/or all manner of other sins.  The 
stage will be set for a paramilitary offensive against them, using 
overwhelming force (eg, helicopter gunships and napalm).  As with 
Waco, it will all end in fire, and the victims will blamed for the 
"suicidal outcome". 

Such an episode will be exploited to accomplish in one fell swoop a 
whole collection of police-state measures.  "Emergency" legislation, 
passed as usual without debate, will extend POLICE and GOVT powers 
still further, especially as regards citizen organizations.  The 
public will be conditioned to accept military-scale warfare as an 
acceptable GOVT "response" to domestic problems.  As for the "right 
to bear arms", it would not be surprising if even possession of BB 
guns and sling shots ended up being a serious felony.


   AMENDMENT 4 - Seizures, Searches and Warrants
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
   houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches 
   and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall 
   issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
   affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 
   searched and he persons or thing to be seized.

Perhaps no other constitutional rights have been more thoroughly 
undermined than those guaranteed by Amendment 4.  Justified by the 
hypocritical "war on drugs and terrorism", non-warrant searches and 
seizures are becoming daily more common.  One cannot drive on a 
highway, or engage in air travel without being subject to arbitrary 
search (on the "hunch" of some enforcement official), and with 
anything discovered being admissible as evidence later, in support of 
whatever charges might subsequently be lodged.

As a matter of personal experience, I once was part of a captive 
audience to a talkative police trainee in California.  He related 
that he was being taught, as part of his official training, that he 
and his fellow officers would be expected to "push the envelope on 
search and seizure" - to see how far they could go without having 
their evidence rejected by the courts.  This may be anecdotal, but it 
suggests the disrespect for the Constitution that pervades GOVT and 
its various agencies.

Amendment 4, for all intents and purposes, is now repudiated: there 
is no longer any reasonable security of persons and their effects.  
King George's notorious and resented Bills of Attainder gave no more 
powers than those now assumed by every highway patrolman and airport 
guard.  Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of this development 
is the lack of public discussion.  The US has traditionally prided 
itself on its Constitution and Bill of Rights, and one would think 
that the final passing of a sacrosanct right would at least be noted 
in the press.  But "public discussion" is limited to whatever MEDIA 
chooses to feature, and "see no evil, hear no evil" is MEDIA's scheme 
for preventing public awareness of the extent of the erosion of civil 
liberties.


   AMENDMENT 5 - Criminal Proceedings, Condemnation of Property
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise 
   infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a 
   grand jury, except in cases rising in the land or naval forces, 
   or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or 
   public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same 
   offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall 
   be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against 
   himself; nor be deprived or life , liberty, or property, without 
   due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public 
   use without just compensation.

This amendment has been undermined in several aspects.  Double 
jeopardy has become routine, with acquittals in State courts 
frequently being followed by convictions in Federal court on 
closely-related "civil rights" charges.  Citizens have been 
frequently compelled to bear witness against themselves by being 
forced by the courts to give evidence in a case against a third 
party, only to find subsequently that their testimony became grounds 
for their own prosecution on related charges.  In addition, 
informants fitted with recording devices are routinely employed to 
_suggest_ crimes to police targets, thus entrapping them into 
planning crimes and incriminating themselves on tape.  A person's 
private property has become subject to confiscation without due 
process or compensation, if there is a "reasonable" _suspicion_ of 
drug dealing; and the mere possession of large amounts of cash is 
considered "presumptive evidence" of guilt.

The conspiratorial stratagems employed NWO, GOVT, and MEDIA in this 
case have been diverse.  Liberals and civil-rights activists were the 
unwitting accomplices in the implementation of double jeopardy, 
through GOVT exploitation of their outrage over shocking acquittals 
in Southern State courts during the sixties.  Compelling self-
incriminating testimony has employed more stealthy tactics, by simply 
being adopted, without public fanfare, as a practical tool in GOVT's 
arsenal against the citizenry.  As with arbitrary search and seizure, 
the stratagem used to justify arbitrary confiscation and entrapment 
has been the "war on drugs".


   AMENDMENT 6 - Mode of Trial in Criminal Proceedings
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right 
   to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State 
   and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which 
   district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be 
   informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be 
   confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory 
   process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the 
   assistance of counsel for his defense.

A whole array of sophisticated tactics are being employed in the 
conspiracy by Defendants to undermine and even eliminate the right to 
trial by jury.  One tactic has involved victimization of immigrants.  
Under the covering fire of MEDIA-encouraged hostility toward "job 
stealing" immigrants, policies have been adopted by GOVT whereby 
immigrants can be deported by "star chamber" proceedings where they 
are not allowed to appear, to see the alleged evidence, nor even to 
be informed of the charges against them.  Not only is this unjust 
toward immigrants, who may have paid taxes and lived law-abiding 
lives for years in the US, but it contributes further to a general 
disrespect for the principles of limited government on which the 
Constitution and nation were based.

The right of a defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers has 
been undermined in the case of crimes against children, and more 
recently in some cases of rape and stalking.  The unwitting 
accomplices in these cases have been well-meaning citizens who 
rightfully are repelled by crime victims being subjected to upsetting 
confrontation by their assaulters.  As usual, there is some apparent 
justice behind each piecemeal erosion of civil liberties, but when we 
stand back and see the overall result, we are left with an 
increasingly vacuous Bill of Rights.

                   -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
                             SIDEBAR

If a live frog is dumped into boiling water, it will immediately jump 
out to safety.  But if it is put in cold water, and a slow flame is 
turned on underneath, the hapless frog will remain until it is 
finally boiled to death.
           -folk observation

                             SIDEBAR
                   -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-

An additional impediment to fair jury trial is the pervasiveness of 
GOVT secrecy.  Relevant GOVT documents and witnesses are often 
declared to be "out of bounds" based on "security" requirements or 
"executive privilege".  Occasionally this results in dismissal of 
prosecution, as is appropriate Constitutionally, but in too many 
cases GOVT-friendly judges are willing to rule that the unavailable 
information or witnesses are "irrelevant" to the defense.

The tactics we have seen thus far, regarding right to a fair jury 
trial, have been piecemeal actions, a gradual chipping away of the 
right from various directions, aimed at particular people or types of 
crimes.

More recently a wholesale campaign has been launched against the 
general right to trial by jury, a campaign employing state-of-the-art 
propaganda techniques, and most probably involving various kinds of 
covert tampering in the process of particular notorious trials.

The most notable of these trials have been that of the police 
officers who were taped beating up Rodney King in Los Angeles, and 
the infamous OJ Simpson trial.  To be sure, the events that led to 
these trials occurred spontaneously.  But at some point the cases 
were identified as being exploitable as anti-jury trial propaganda, 
and a carefully orchestrated MEDIA circus was organized and 
presented, with who-knows-what-degree of behind-the-scenes assistance 
from GOVT agents, crime laboratories, and (witting or unwitting) 
accomplices on the prosecution staff.  

To begin with, the unprecedented amount of coverage devoted to these 
cases, especially the OJ case, demands a credible explanation.  The 
justification of "popular demand" is highly questionable: as the 
trial dragged on, more people were complaining about their favorite 
shows being cancelled than were calling in to say they wanted the 
gavel-to-gavel coverage to continue.  I suggest to you, ladies and 
gentlemen of the jury, that MEDIA produced the circus-trial shows 
because it wanted full national attention devoted to the proceedings, 
so that wholesale public disrespect for the jury process could be 
promulgated by the subtle spins carefully engineered into the 
coverage of the trial.

Just to pick one incident as an example, consider the dramatic moment 
when OJ tried on the famous glove, and (surprise) found that it 
didn't fit.  How could anyone have been fooled by that charade?  Is 
OJ's hand size supposed to be a federal secret?  Was the prosecution 
staff so brain-dead that it couldn't measure the glove beforehand and 
realize it couldn't possibly fit?  Admittedly, OJ must ultimately 
have been given the opportunity (or perhaps have been required) to 
try on the glove, but why did the prosecution allow the circumstances 
to be so dramatically favorable to the defense?  Why didn't they 
defuse the drama by pointing out beforehand that the glove might have 
shrunk while in storage, and state loudly and clearly they didn't 
think the test would have any significance?

This one example is hardly conclusive, but the trial was full of 
absurdly incompetent and unprofessional prosecution behavior, from 
dubious crime-lab procedures, to lying detectives.  For such a high 
profile case, with everyone's performance visible to millions, it is 
very difficult to swallow the charade as mere inadvertent bungling.

In fact there were two trials going on, one in the courtroom, with an 
official jury, and another on television, with the audience as jury.  
The white members of the audience, generally speaking, focused on the 
question of the probable guilt vs. innocence of OJ; the black members 
of the audience, generally speaking, focused on the revelations of 
prosecution wrong-doing.

As a result, blacks generally felt the eventual not-guilty verdict 
was justified, while most whites came to the conclusion that it was a 
travesty of justice.  In the first Rodney King trial, these ethnic 
predispositions were reversed, with blacks outraged at the not-guilty 
verdict against the baton-happy officers, while whites were more 
outraged by the expression of rage that followed in the streets of 
LA's black community.  For blacks, the Rodney King episode was about 
police lawlessness and jury injustice; for whites the episode was 
about black lawlessness.

As we shall see later in this indictment, the ethic factionalism 
generated by these sophisticated MEDIA propaganda techniques serves 
various objectives in the general conspiracy to install a police 
state.  As regards trial by jury, the net result of the two trials 
was that nearly everyone (of whatever ethnicity) who saw both trials 
came away with a greatly shaken faith in the justice of the jury 
system.  Thus public opinion has been painstakingly softened up for 
further undermining of amendment 6.

Just the other day, on an American news program rebroadcast on late-
night BBC, I saw the first indications of how this softening-up campaign 
is to be followed up.  The program reported that Americans are 
"beginning to wonder" if trial by jury still works in our "modern 
age", and suggested that modern trials are "too complex" for the 
public to understand.  Recent "famous trials" were mentioned, and it 
was noted that many people (surprise) "doubted" that justice had been 
done.

I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the campaign to 
drastically undermine jury trial is now entering high gear, and that 
GOVT will begin to aggressively "respond to public pressure" to 
"reform" the "antiquated" jury system, in the alleged interests of 
"justice" and "efficiency".  In actual fact, the result of such 
"reform" can only be increased GOVT power relative to the citizenry.  


   AMENDMENT 7 - Trial by Jury
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall 
   exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be 
   preserved; and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise 
   re-examined in any court of the United States than according to 
   the rules of common law.

As we have seen in the case of persons, this right to trial in civil 
cases has already been severely undermined: property can be 
confiscated without trial (or any other due process) if "suspicion of 
drug dealing" can be conjured up by some police department - and such 
confiscations have become a welcome and steady source of 
supplementary funding in many police jurisdictions.

But this amendment is undergoing attack from a different direction as 
well, and for quite different reasons.  The motivation for this 
second attack is NWO displeasure at the large awards that juries 
frequently grant to victims of corporate negligence.  Particular 
cases are selected, where the propaganda value is deemed favorable, 
and articles are planted in the media (the Readers Digest being one 
favorite venue) which skillfully discredit the jury award system.


   AMENDMENT 8 - Involuntary Servitude
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, 
   nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Justified by the "war on drugs and crime", and assisted by an ongoing 
deluge of slanted fictional police dramas and sensationalized news 
reports of repeat offenders, mandatory sentencing and three-strike 
laws have made a mockery of Amendment 8.  Life imprisonment for 
stealing a pizza is perhaps the most dramatic example of how far 
"cruel and unusual punishment" has progressed.

Part of the supporting propaganda campaign for draconian sentencing 
is based on a mythology of "crime proneness" and even "crime genes", 
reminiscent of the genetic theories of Nazi Germany.  This mythology 
has encouraged the attitude that prison is a place to permanently 
house certain segments of the population (mostly blacks and latinos), 
rather than a place where a "debt to society" is paid followed by a 
return to society.

Prison construction has become a high-growth industry in the US, and 
the prison population is being exploited as a source of cheap labor, 
undercutting civilian workers and adding to the unemployment problem.  
The title "Involuntary Servitude" is appropriate for Amendment 8, as 
the consequence of its infringement is turning out to be a form of 
neo-slavery, with prisons operating as profitable "plantations" for 
corporate employers.

                   -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
                             SIDEBAR

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up - 
   I wasn't a Communist; 
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up - 
   I wasn't a Jew; 
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up - 
   I wasn't a Catholic; 
Then they came for me - 
   And there was no one left to speak up.
           - Martin Niemöller, concentration camp survivor

                             SIDEBAR
                   -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-