Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Violent crime declines as American gun ownership rises


For the third consecutive year, violent crime has declined in the United States during the same period when gun and ammunition purchases have increased dramatically, something that should not be happening, if one were to believe the gun prohibition lobby. The FBI on Monday released preliminary uniform crime data showing that the four major violent crime categories are all slipping. Overall, 2009 experienced a 7.2 percent drop in murders, an 8.1 percent decrease in robbery, a 4.2 percent decline in aggravated assault and 3.1 percent reduction in forcible rape. Yet, according to data from the FBI’s National Instant Check System and – from all places – the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, gun and ammunition sales are up dramatically. NICS background checks are up this year, and the excise tax apportionments to the states from the sale of firearms and ammunition have climbed from $336,474,545 in Fiscal Year 2009 to a whopping $472,719,710 for FY 2010. Do any kind of math you like, that still translates to more than $136 million in additional excise tax revenues over 2009, which further translates to a lot more guns and ammunition, and hunting/shooting-related gear changing hands at the retail counter.

Read The Rest At Orwell's Dreams


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 11, 2010

My Left Breast Put Fancy TSA Scanner to the Test


A funny thing happened to me at airport security this week: The full-body scanner appeared to detect my fake left breast.




Bookmark and Share




Felony Snowball Tossing Charges Lodged


FEBRUARY 9–Felony snowball throwing charges have been leveled against two Virginia college students for allegedly pelting a city plow and an undercover police car during Saturday’s blizzard.




Bookmark and Share


Friday, February 5, 2010

We Don’t Need A State


We Don’t Need A State

Many people ask, “But how in the world could a laissez-faire society deal with aggression by foreign nations, since it would have no government to protect it?” Behind this question are two unrealized assumptions: first, that government is some sort of extra-societal entity with resources of its own – resources which can only be tapped for defense by the action of government – and, second, that government does, in fact, defend its citizens.




Bookmark and Share


Members of Congress Seeking To Gut The First Amendment


Members of Congress Seeking To Gut The First Amendment

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, several Democrats on Capitol Hill are advocating a Constitutional Amendment: Democrats in Congress want to amend the U.S. Constitution to say free speech does not extend to corporations in response to the Supreme Court’s decision allowing freer corporate spending in political campaigns.




Bookmark and Share


Friday, January 29, 2010

"Our Troops" Shoot Father, With His Kids in the Car, Which They Deemed Threatening (a Toyota Corolla)


Oh, so very proud
Hooray.
Yah, right; the expression some of us know to mean the opposite, definitely not right.
Although I only read an excerpt of an article on this story posted at uruknet.info, the excerpt appearing with the link for the article in the home or main index page of the website, I didn't read the whole piece. Just the title and excerpt were enough to tell me that yet another tragic killing occurred and for no valid reason whatsoever. After all, no one can credibly argue that a Toyota Corolla with a man and children in it is threatening, at all.
I suppose it's because the soldiers who committed this tragic killing are just too psychologically stressed due to being in this zone of a totally criminal war, perhaps really suffering from PTSD. If that's the case, then I can't personally consider them as responsible for this tragic incident. Otherwise, they should be charged with murder and made to stand Nurember style trials alongside the war makers and the leading continuers, which means the responsible or guilty people of the White House, but also plenty of other guilty people or elite, military and corporate; none of whom can credibly be treated as committing their criminal leadership due to suffering from PTSD. They suffer from a severe socio-psychological problem, like psychopathia, and another condition called cowardice, but these certainly are not bases for treating these people as not being responsible for their criminal leadership.
The troops commit the actual killings, but the real murderers, and plunderers, occupy the highest offices of the USA's political body and military, and, of course, their masters in Corporate America. They're so evil it's difficult to even think of referring to them as people.


by Mike Corbeil





Bookmark and Share


Saturday, December 12, 2009

Uh-Oh

by Becky Akers

We’re doomed: someone posted the pattern for Superman’s cape and a link to the manufacturer of its magic fabric on the net. That means bad guys with sewing machines and the desire to leap tall buildings in a single bound probably can after 15 minutes of cutting and stitching. Heck, the capes may even endow them with X-ray vision so they can peer through our clothing.

Oh, wait, bad guys already do that. And now they’re wiping egg off their faces after publishing online a classified manual detailing the highly hush-hush rigmarole for “airport security screening.” Supposedly rife with “sensitive security information,” these 93 pages confirm what we all know: anyone wearing a badge or one of the State’s unfashionable outfits glides past checkpoints without hassle from the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) goons. So do “foreign dignitaries equivalent to cabinet rank and above,” though these are the most dangerous sociopaths on the planet: they lie, steal, and start wars. Indeed, were you listing threats to the public’s safety, you’d begin with them and bubonic plague. Not the TSA. It grants these liars, thieves, and murderers a pass so LaWanda and her blue gloves can spend more time groping innocent taxpayers and passengers.

Read The Rest At Orwell's Dreams


Bookmark and Share

Friday, December 11, 2009

Wake Up America-Current State of Affairs in a Nutshell


Stephen Byers, Sr
Whitefield, NH USA

To my Fellow Americans,


“I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within” – General Douglas MacArthur.

What exactly did General MacArthur mean? Let me try to explain. The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic based on liberty and the unalienable rights of the individual; and where the government exercised it’s limited power and authority with the consent of “We the people”. But slowly, over the course of the past 100 years, “invisible” forces have turned us into a socialist “Democracy” where government is the Ultimate power and authority; where every action of our lives is legislated and restricted, and where Rights are becoming nonexistent. (If that sounds like an absurd statement, then think about this: the United States, a supposed Free society, has a population of 300 Million; yet this Free society has a total of 2.3 million adults held in prison; or one in every 99.1 adults. That puts the US far head of ANY other country: including Communist China, a supposed repressive society. China has a population of 1.3 Billion people, yet they have only 1.5 million people behind bars).

To those who believe that we continue to be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, and that the government is limited in it’s power and authority as enumerated in the Constitution, I say take the blinders off your eyes and wake up! If you do, and honestly seek the truth, this is what you will see. That today the true seat of Power in Washington is the “Invisible Government”, which exercises its total control from behind the scenes. Who is this Invisible Government? It is a small elite group of individuals who own and control the Giant International Banks and Corporations, and who exercise their control through the Military-Industrial Complex. Through their foundations and organizations, like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission , they train and groom those who would be the “movers and shakers” of both U.S. political parties; in other words, they own and control the Republican and Democratic parties.

In his book, “With No Apologies,” former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, “The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power– political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.”

In 1961, John F. Kennedy warned in a speech “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed”. Sadly, Kennedy ignored his own advice, took these people on, and was “silenced”!

The Invisible Government also owns and controls the Media. In 1915 JP Morgan interests and their subsidiary organizations purchased the editorial policies of the 25 most important newspapers in the U.S. By controlling the policy of the most important newspapers, they were able to control the general policy of the whole media. The Rockefellers eventually took over the Morgan empire. They gained control of the Associated Press. They also own the trend setting magazines Time, Life, Fortune, and Newsweek. The “elite” own and control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ect….

In 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

This criminal cabal of power elites, banks, corporations, government officials, and the mainstream media have effectively destroyed our economy, and the foundation of constitutional government which we have taken for granted. These evil people have stolen the wealth of the US Treasury whilst exploiting the power and might of the US Military to achieve their agenda. Meanwhile, corrupt government officials continue to pass unconstitutional laws to the benefit of themselves and the elite. They believe our Constitution and Laws don’t pertain to them. It is imperative everyone know that both political parties are controlled by the “Invisible Government”, and that our presidential election is a fraud between their two preselected candidates. Their “man” always wins.

We have just transitioned from the lies, deceit and prevarication of one administration to the lies, deceit and prevarication of another; it is, in fact, a continuation of the same betrayal of constitutional guarantees, unlawful and unrestricted immigration, insecure borders, wild frivolous spending, and government encouragement of the continuing transition to a deeply immoral society. The government will persist in eroding our constitutionally protected unalienable rights, and what little is left of the people’s sovereignty will most assuredly be legislated away. In days gone by our leaders were chosen from among the people: they were the servants and we were the Master. Now our leaders are chosen from (and by) the elite: they are the Master, and “we the people” are their servants.

Realize this: If the Republicans or the Democrats could have fixed this nation, they would have done it long before now. The more you look, the more you see that both major U.S. political parties are dominated and controlled by this “Invisible Government”. Both major U.S. political parties do NOT work for, nor do they represent “We the People”; but instead represent the the global elitists; the super-rich foundations; the NGO’s; the global bankers; the global corporations; and the lobbyists. Bankrolled by the Rothschild money dynasty (principal owners of the federal reserve banks), they have emerged as our present day aristocracy, the “ruling elite families” which includes generations of Rockefellers, Kennedys, and the Bush family; perennial “intellectuals” like Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Albright, Christopher, and Rubin; all the members of the “Council on Foreign Relations” and the “Trilateral Commission”; and all of the one-time and/or yearly attendees at the annual “Bilderberg” conference.

The much anticipated Obama “change” has been to simply change one CFR perennial appointee for another. Don’t believe me? Well, let’s look at Obama’s top cabinet picks. When considering their collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things “change” under Obama, the more they stay the same.

Timothy Geithner – Treasury Secretary : Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, formerly of Kissinger Associates.

Paul Volcker – Economic Recovery Advisory Board : Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve chairman under Presidents Carter and Reagan, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company.

Lawrence Summers – National Economic Council : Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Treasury Secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, chief economist at IMF.

Hillary Clinton – Secretary of State : Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, US Senator.

Joseph Biden – Vice President : Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, US Senator.

Robert Gates – Defense Secretary: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary under President Bush, former CIA Director.

General James Jones – National Security Advisor : Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, European supreme allied commander, special envoy for Middle East Security during Bush administration, board of directors for Chevron and Boeing, and member of Brent Scowcroft’s Institute for International Affairs along with Bilderberg Icon Henry Kissinger, top Obama Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bobby Ray Inman, and former CIA Director John Deutch.

Barack Obama is himself a Council on Foreign Relations member. Corporate members of the CFR include ABC News, General Electric (owner of NBC News), News Corporation (owner of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal), and Time Warner (owner of CNN and Time). (Remember, I told you they own and control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ect…). In regard to key economic policy advisors, all of Obama’s selections maintain a close relationship with one or more of these long time CFR, Trilateral Commission, government insiders: Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan; as well as ties to bailout engineer Henry Paulson.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as a top aide. Patterson will serve as Geithner’s chief of staff at Treasury, which just happens to oversee the Trillions being handed out through the financial bailout programs. The list of former Goldman Sachs employees holding top positions in the Obama administration includes: Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, who is the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Geithner. Reuben Jeffery III, former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, who holds the post of undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs. Neel Kashkari, former Goldman Sachs vice president, who is the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, responsible for administering the TARP funds. Dianna Farrell, former financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, who serves as deputy director of the National Economic Council. 2 Former chairmen of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin, also held the job of US Treasury Secretary.

Source:
Bookmark and Share

Who Decides in the United States Government?


by Kim Petersen

It has been a contentious issue among progressives as to what explains the Israel-United States dynamic. Linguistics professor Noam Chomsky has insisted that the US calls the shots and that the US plays a rejectionist role in moves toward Middle East peace.1 Chomsky is joined by a number of other progressives in this camp. There are a number of progressives in another camp that argue organized Jewry has gained preponderant influence in the world’s superpower. Some argued that Israeli influence was preeminent while being quite uncritical of Zionist crimes against Palestinians — for example, professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.2 Others were primarily concerned with the influence of a Jewish Lobby in perpetuating the ongoing dispossession of and slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians.3

A report in Israeli media yesterday boasts that Jews are vetting appointments to the US government. Haaretz claims, “Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.”4

The article in Haaretz is another nail in the coffin of adducing Jewish (mainly Zionist) influence over the US government.

For many people this will be unsurprising. When US President Barack Obama pledged fealty to Israel at the AIPAC policy conference in June 2008, when he surrounded himself with arch-Zionists Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc., when he backed down to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the building of illegal colonies (euphemistically called “settlements”) in occupied Palestinian territory (which all Israel is), he merely affirmed genuflection that had been observed in predecessor presidents.5

A segment of organized Jewry has gained an influential political foothold in the US, although this is not confined to the US and neither is it confined to politics.

Jews have also gained influence in Canadian6 and British politics.7 They have gained influence in business, media, and academia. This is not unusual as there is competition for influence and dominance, and other groups dominate in other sectors of society. Is domination of a sector by one group beneficial for society? Should certain sectors be kept open? These questions need to be answered. I submit that when influence supports the oppression of any group of humans, then that influence must be ended.

The segment of Jewry that seeks to dominate and dispossess Palestinians creates an image that tarnishes, wrongly, the entire community of Jews. Israeli Jews, by virtue of the fact that they live on occupied land, elect governments that carry out apartheid and racism, and support massacres of Palestinians (94 percent reportedly backed the slaughter in Gaza8 ) are morally challenged.

There is opposition from some Israeli Jews, but clearly, a multitude of Israeli Jews is supporting war crimes and oppression. Zionism, along with its ideology of oppression, has extended its influence overseas which makes other nations complicit in the oppression. All humans must denounce the occupation of Palestine.9

Much of the discussion over who wields the preponderant influence in the US-Israel relationship has focused on denouncing persons holding to a certain view. This is unhelpful. It is sufficient to refute the erroneous position of another person by citing superior facts and proffering superior reasoning. The focus must be on ending the oppression of Palestinians and enforcing human rights.

Others may obstinately profess otherwise, but clearly, there is a pressure exerted by a pro-Zionism lobby. That, however, must not detract from the righteousness of seeking social justice for the Palestinians. Support for freeing peoples from oppression must be advocated for oppressed peoples everywhere with the onus being on advocating on behalf of people where one resides.

Simple advocacy is not enough, however. Morality demands an active adherence to principles. It is through solidarizing and committing to actively opposing oppression that people become the deciders.

  1. See Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1983, 1999). []
  2. See John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” London Review of Books, 28(6), 23 March 2006: 3-12 []
  3. Jeffrey Blankfort, “Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict,” Dissident Voice, 25 May 2005; James Petras, Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power (Clarity Press, 2008). []
  4. Natasha Mozgovaya, “American Jews eye Obama’s ‘anti-Israel’ appointees,” Haaretz, 4 December 2009. []
  5. See Grant F. Smith, Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal (Washington, DC: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2007); Grant F. Smith, America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israeli Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government (Washington, DC: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2008). []
  6. Kim Petersen, “Zionist Appeasement: A Blight on the Canadian Political Landscape,” Dissident Voice, 11 February 2007. []
  7. William A. Cook, “Zionist Control of Britain’s Government: 1940-2009,” Dissident Voice, 20 November 2009. []
  8. Etgar Lefkovits, “Overwhelming Israeli support of Gaza op,” Jerusalem Post, 14 January 2009. []
  9. Non-Israelis must not feel smug in this denunciation, as Canadians, Americans, Australians, Aotearoans, and non-Indigenous peoples throughout the western hemisphere also live in states wrought through dispossession of the Original Peoples. Original Peoples, especially, must also oppose the oppression of brothers and sisters elsewhere, such as in historical Palestine. To not do so would undermine their own struggles against oppression. Yet there was little outcry heard when the Assembly of First Nations aligned itself with Israel rather than the Palestinians. See: Announcements, “Canadian Jewish Congress, Assembly of First Nations travel to Israel for educational mission,” AFN, 17 February 2006. []
Source: Dissident Voice
Bookmark and Share

VeriChip’s Merger With Credit Monitoring Firm Worries Privacy Activists


By Penn Bullock

Remember VeriChip, the Florida company that once dreamed of injecting its human-implantable RFID microchips in everyone from immigrant guest workers to prison inmates?

We haven’t heard much from the company since a dipping stock price nearly got it delisted from the NASDAQ in March. But it’s still alive, and in November it pulled off a seemingly incongruous acquisition. Now called PositiveID, the new company is a merger between VeriChip and Steel Vault, the people behind NationalCreditReport.com.

With a human-implantable microchip maker now running a credit-scoring and identity-theft-protection website, privacy activists are worried again. “The attraction to investors is the potential for synergies,” says Mark Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. “You have to anticipate over time there will be an attempt to integrate the services.”

Read The Rest Here

Bookmark and Share

Chomsky says Israel, 'US military base'


Renowned American sociopolitical analyst Noam Chomsky says Israel functions as Washington's main weapons storage base in the Middle East.

"Israel is essentially a US military base, the US positions weapons there, that's a very close military and intelligence tie," the Jewish academic told Press TV on Wednesday while explaining the complexity of relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.

Commenting on the weapons that Israel received from the US before launching its 2007-2008 offensive in the Gaza Strip, Chomsky said that the exchange of weapons between the two sides was not surprising.

"[Israel] is receiving weapons constantly. In fact, weapons were sent during the invasion of Gaza. They tried to send them, they were supposed to send them from Greece, and Greece refused to ship them," he said.

"When pentagon was asked about this, they responded (I think correctly) that the weapons were not being sent for the Gaza invasion which was underway with the US weapons of course; rather, the US was positioning weapons in Israel," he added.

The professor, who was taking part in an interview with Press TV after delivering a speech at Boston University, said that although Israel had influence over the US foreign policy, it still had to act within the boundaries of what Washington allowed.

"Take for example Israeli threats against Iran or US threats for that matter, in which if anybody cares it is a violation of the UN charter,” said Chomsky.

"Last summer in 2008, right in the middle of the presidential election… Israeli lobbyists tried very hard to push through a resolution in congress calling for a blockade on Iran which essentially would have been an act of war.

"They were rounding up quite lot of senators… and all of a sudden the effort terminated, presumably what happened is the White House… wanted to have a word with them, so they pulled back, that happens over and over, Israel can not go beyond what the US permits," he added.

During his address at Boston University, the recognized professor also warned of the threat that the US and Israel posed to the world and said people may have more to fear from the two than those that Washington tries to associate with terrorism.

"[The US and Israel] consistently and regularly… resort to force and the threat of force… carry out aggression regularly and repeatedly… invade other countries, occupy other countries, [and] invoke terror and violence," he said.

Chomsky also pointed out that the US government and its media had spread exaggerated reports about Iran's nuclear program.

"There has been a massive propaganda campaign that demonizes Iran, that portrays it as a major threat to world peace that has been going on for the past three years," he said.

Source: Press TV
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Will you get caught by the REAL ID deadline?


Will you get caught by the REAL ID deadline?

REAL ID is scheduled to go into effect on January 1. The good news is that it may be repealed by then. The bad news is that it may be replaced by something worse, the PASS ID.

Please tell Congress to repeal REAL ID and reject the PASS ID.

This is what I wrote in my letter . . .

REAL ID has proved to be unworkable and unwanted.

  • 36 states will not be in compliance with REAL ID by the January 1 deadline
  • Fifteen states have passed statutes prohibiting it, and another ten have passed resolutions denouncing it. http://realnightmare.org/news/105/

If REAL ID is not repealed,

Read The Rest Here

Posted using ShareThis

Our Dead Constitution


by Timothy Baldwin

dead-constitutionOur Constitution is dead. Rigor mortis set in a long time ago. Peculiar enough, many Americans who claim to love our constitution believe it is alive and well with hot red blood running through its vein. Plainly put: they are naïve, deceived or ignorant. Those who killed the constitution (and their posterity, with whom we are living today) pick up the dead corpse, move it around like a puppet on strings, put make up on it to make it look pretty, prop it up against a wall to stand on its own, and proclaim and swear an oath to us and God that they will preserve, defend and protect what they know to be dead. Ironically, they accomplish this, in part, through what they term a “living constitution”, which has bled the life’s blood from our constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans fail to see that our political circumstances are very similar and parallel to those which our founders considered to be a line in the sand.

Claude Halstead Van Tyne, in his book, The Causes of the War of Independence, describes the circumstances which caused America’s War for Independence. The cause was not “taxation without representation” per se. It was not “the government is too big” per se. It was not “taxes are too high” per se. It was the concept that government is limited by the principles of freedom found in the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and secured by their constitution; and government actions taken beyond those limitations are to be met with resistance. In Van Tyne’s description of this causation, what is strikingly similar to our current situation is that Great Britain considered their constitution to be “living” and to give Parliament and King George the power, authority and right to essentially act in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. Van Tyne observes,

“The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Samuel Adams and many of his fellow countrymen, on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by ‘the law of God and nature,’ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but Lord Mansfield and his followers, on the other hand, asserted rightly that ‘the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,’ and ‘there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now’ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain… Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.” The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), 235, 237.

Great Britain’s political ideology is the same ideology that 99% of our federal politicians demonstrate today! This is just what Congressman Henry Hyde (R) expressed in 2006, when he responded to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that Congress must declare war before G.W. Bush can constitutionally launch (what is now) an eight year and growing war half way across the world, sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to risk their lives and die and spending hundreds of billions of tax payer monies to support the same. Hyde says, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.” James T. Bennett, Homeland Security Scams, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 133. Did the vast majority of Congressmen (Republican and Democrat, House and Senate) believe the same as Hyde? We know they did because they continued to shirk and even ignore their constitutional obligation to declare war, while funding the same with our money and with our lives–all contrary to the constitution, to the lessons of human history and to the principles of self-government and limited government.

Many thousands of persons all across America repeatedly and continually scream the voice of discontent of unconstitutional government. Thousands of books have been written on how the constitution has been ignored, trampled, despised, and even laughed at by those we elect to uphold that very document and the principles founding it. I do not need delineate the (not so “light and transient”) abuses, encroachments, and usurpations upon our constitution. It is a known fact. It is admitted. There is no hiding it. The long train of abuses is evident, established and provable. Our federal government has, through fraud, deceit, force and bribe, converted our once Constitutional Federal Republic into a Despotic National Oligarchy. We now have the same (if not worse) form and type of government that we seceded from in 1776. Yet, many people who claim to love the constitution will criticize those who recommend a different course of action other than voting for a President who will hopefully appoint a “conservative” judge to the supreme court; other than focusing our solutions on Washington D.C.; other than playing political games with those causing and controlling all that we claim to despise; or other than confining our redress to federal courts and two political parties.

Thomas Paine witnessed those during his living-constitution/government-despot days whose only method of redress was to send correspondence and complaint to King George and Parliament, hoping for reclamation of freedom through the very system that was enslaving them. To these plans of action, Thomas Paine says, “There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.” Thomas Paine and Mark Philip, ed., Oxford World’s Classics: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Common Sense and other Political Writings, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 27. To Thomas Paine, changing the plan of action to resist and arrest tyranny was simply Common Sense. Thankfully, our founders agreed. Thankfully, this change meant truly standing for freedom, natural rights, limited government, self-government, federalism and constitutional government. This change necessarily meant putting off the old man and putting on the new. It necessarily meant burying the dead and quickening the fetus of freedom.

The United States Constitution was formed and framed on certain immutable principles: principles which acknowledge that God is the Source of all rights; the Definer of all authority; the Judge of all actions and laws; the Giver of life, property and pursuit of happiness. Those principles never die. They live forever. However, as our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence, governments can become destructive to these ends. Indeed, they can. Understand: Great Britain’s history was similar to America’s. It contained men and women of principle and courage who were catalysts to providing freedom throughout Europe. Europe indeed is the home of the forefathers which our founders studied and adored. Great Britain’s constitution was formed and framed upon the principles expounded upon by Enlightenment philosophers, jurists, lawyers, judges, and theologians. Yet, their constitution died–not because of natural causes, but because those who were constrained by it killed it.

History proves this: not even a (free) constitution can secure freedom where the principles of it are abandoned and the applications of it are ignored. French philosopher Charles Montesquieu (whom our founders relied upon heavily in political thought) confirms this in his book, Spirit of Laws, when he says, “The constitution may happen to be free, and the subject not…It is the disposition only of the laws, and even of the fundamental laws, that constitutes liberty in relation to the constitution.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 183. How observant he was.

Why is America not free? Is it because we do not have a free constitution? No. Is it because the principles that formed our constitution do not create freedom? No. Is it because Obama is in the White House? No. Is it because Democrats are evil? No. Is it because God was “kicked out” of our public schools? No. Is it because abortion was made “legal”? No. Is it because America engages in unjust wars? No. Is it because America’s presidents have entangled in foreign affairs? No. Those are simply fruits of the root of our dead constitution. Our constitution is dead because our agents, the government, have created a matrix, a system whereby our original constitution and its principles have no application to their power. They are merely bound by their arbitrary discretion–the very definition of tyranny. Even worse, our constitution is dead because the people and the states have consented to its murder.

Like a loved-one who has passed on, I love and miss our constitution (not that it has been alive since I was born in 1979). Yet, while I love the constitution, I love the freedom it was designed to protect much more, and I put freedom and its principles above and beyond the document and words of our constitution. Indeed, the words of the constitution do not create freedom. History and common sense teach us this (which is why America cannot “spread democracy” to the world). Thus, I do not love the words contained in the constitution. Rather, I love the principles of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God which formed the words. I do not love the three separate branches of the federal government: I love the limits of power and authority they were instituted to secure. I do not love federalism: rather, I love the security it brings to ensure that my children live in freedom.

Thankfully, since principles derived from the laws of God never die, we the people of the states continue to have the power of truth to reestablish and reinstitute forms of government to secure our freedom. Thankfully, we have fifty sovereign and independent states to activate the principles of free government within those political borders, resisting and arresting any attempts from outsiders who would attempt to enslave their citizens. Thankfully, our forefathers bequeathed to us a framework, legacy, heritage, and foundation of hope and freedom. They bequeathed to us truths we hold to be self-evident.

We all have fond memories of our constitution when it was alive and well, but the time has come when we who love the freedom it protected must admit that those who are supposed to be bound by its mandates, principles and limitations have killed it, and they need to be treated like the murderers they are, just as Thomas Paine said about his government: “A common murderer, a highwayman, or a housebreaker, has as good a pretence as he.” Paine and Philip, ed., American Crisis I, 64. These murderers have put us into a place in nature before the constitution was quickened and made alive by the people of the sovereign states of America. See, Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 14–15. We are literally better off not having made alive this document that is literally being used against us, our posterity and our freedom. They are forcing us to consider recalling and retaking all the powers we gave them (as our agents) for the protection of our and our posterity’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness–our natural rights from God. In fact, this is what John Locke confirms about our natural right:

“Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give to any one, or more, an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them. This were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man, or many in combination.” Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 72.


The people of the states must get serious about this matter. We must put the fear of God and the fear of the people before the eyes of tyrants. Otherwise, they will be like those described in Romans 3:16-18 (KJV) and we will continue to suffer for it: “Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.” When the people of the states of America recognize our natural power to abolish, alter and institute new forms of government to secure the ends of freedom, we will have a free constitution alive and well and a free people benefiting from its life. We will once again have government (of, by and for the people) that has the fear of God and the people before their eyes and that will act accordingly.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his website.

Source: 10th Amendment Center

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Political correctness has replaced British Politics!



Just a note to point out that the global financial meltdown we are experiencing now can be placed fairly and squarely at the feet of political correctness and social engineering - courtesy of the now ruling Democratic Party in the USA. While this fact is well known over there, you won't hear it mentioned in the UK, beyond Gordon Brown's mumble "..global financial crisis ... started in America...". Perhaps someone should ask him how and why it started in America! You don't believe me? Read about it and watch a video here

If you agree with what you read here, please help civilisation by linking to this site whenever and wherever you can. After all (to paraphrase Edmund Burke) for political correctness to triumph it only requires that sensible people do nothing!

Have you ever stopped to wonder why 40% of people don't bother to vote anymore? Have you ever stopped to wonder why, which ever party is in power, nothing ever gets any better? Have you ever stopped to wonder why all the three major political parties in the UK have broadly the same policies? The answer is simple - political correctness. This left wing ideology has very cleverly, and by stealth, replaced British politics. The PC Brigade effectively hold a gun to the head of political parties - none of the main parties now dare suggest any policy that is not politically correct otherwise the PC Brigade will label them the 'nasty' party. Witness the Conservative party policy U turns. In a desperate effort to lose their 'nasty' party label they have become Blue Labour, a slightly diluted form of New Labour!

So we now have the three main parties all occupying the same small piece of 'centre ground'. Many people don't vote on the grounds that it is pointless - you will get the same whoever wins. Some people don't vote because they realise that politically correct policies are what has got us into this mess in the first place.

Other people don't vote because they realise that career politicians are a self seeking, corrupt bunch of freeloaders who they wouldn't trust to run their whelk stall while they were on holiday. Notice that I say career politicians - this is the new breed of politicians that haven't ever entered the real world of work. They have left school, gone to university and then blagged a job as a 'research assistant' to a MP before realising that with most of our laws now made abroad, the job was such a well paid doddle that they could do it themselves. They have never had to hold down a proper job, they have no management or other skills, hold no real political views and tend to migrate to whichever party looks most likely to win power. To survive in this fantasy environment all you need to do is to be politically correct. You can read more about this, the political parties and how the New Labour ministers got there under Politicians/ Parties on the navigation bar.

So what is political correctness, how did it start and how did it become so successful? Political correctness is first and foremost an attack on free speech, clear thinking and discussion. Political correctness is perpetrated by the left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to offend anyone (which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really nasty person and deserves to be ostracised by their peers. This peer pressure is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness.

For example, if you question whether unfettered immigration into this country is necessarily a good thing or perhaps whether immigrants should be health checked, then you must be a nasty bigoted 'Little Englander'. Come on everyone - shout him down with cries of 'racist'. Of course, only the hard of thinking could be drawn into this charade - anyone with an ounce of common sense can see right through it.

So how did it all start? Political Correctness started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn't the wonderful idea of communism spreading? Read the short history here, the full history and purpose here or watch a 22 minute documentary here.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

  1. the creation of racism offences
  2. continual change to create confusion
  3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
  4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
  5. huge immigration to destroy national identity
  6. the promotion of excessive drinking
  7. emptying the churches
  8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
  9. dependency on the state or state benefits
  10. control and dumbing down of media
  11. encouraging the breakdown of the family

Sound all too familiar? Yes - Great Britain 1997 onwards......

The basic idea is to make the country wholly dependent on the State. By the dumbing down of education, the creation of huge state sector employment and large scale immigration, New Labour has effectively created a captive audience to vote for them or Blue Labour, should the Conservatives actually get back into power.

If the Conservatives did get back into power, nothing much would change. David Cameron has already shown his true politically correct credentials many times but none so shamelessly as when he sacked the well respected Patrick Mercer, just for speaking the truth. Patrick Mercer wasn't being a racist, he was just commenting on how in Army life you get picked on if you have some different feature whether it is black skin, ginger hair, being fat or just lazy. My Father did me a great service many years ago when pointed out that 'sticks & stones would break my bones but names would never hurt me'. Thanks for instilling some common sense in me, Dad!

But of course, political correctness has made common sense a thing of the past. If you catch a burglar in your house then it's probably best to help the poor soul by carrying your possessions to the front door lest he should trip up and hurt himself and it's you that end up in court!

After all, you won't get much help from the Police, who have been effectively neutralised by the fast tracking of university graduates whose only experience of life has been obtained in the liberal atmosphere of education. Probably best not to complain to them about their lack of attendance when your car has been vandalised or you will probably get a letter back from a Superintendent pointing out that vandals are victims as well (read it here). And just in case any real policemen still exist, the Politically Correct Brigade has turned the Police Force in on itself by claims of institutional racism.

If they do actually succeed in getting a villain into court (only 1 for every 100 crimes committed) then the Magistrates hand out such lenient sentences (as laid down by the very Politically Correct 'sentencing advisory panel') that there is no deterrent. If you do end up in prison (extremely unlikely as New Labour have deliberately refused to build anything like enough new places) the prison officers are told to call you by your first name and not say anything that may upset you! As your cell is now your home, you are allowed to smoke there but Prison Officers who want to search it for drugs now have to give you 30 mins notice of their visit so that they don't put themselves at risk from the smoke oh and also to give you enough time to move your drugs elsewhere. Just in case you do get bored, you can keep yourself amused by repeatedly taking the prison governor to court over trivial matters that you think violate your human rights (no pornography etc) - all paid for by legal aid!

Travellers can descend upon your area, dump old cars and shit everywhere with impunity. You try doing it in your front garden and see what happens! They are allowed to bypass the normal planning controls that are so strictly enforced on the rest of us and cost local councils hundreds of thousands of pounds in court cases and clean-ups. Who pays? Why you do of course - just check your council tax bill!

Illegal immigrants (if caught) are rarely deported. Those that are deported are just the more honest ones who don't know how to play the system or haven't been coached by the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns which is funded by your lottery money! Oh and have you got a long way to come to get here? Why not hijack an airliner for the trip? Don't worry, we will still let you stay!

Would you like a black coffee? NO! You can't say that! It's coffee without milk and Local Authorities spend a fortune of our money on making their employees attend courses on Newspeak and Diversity training!

Our British humour has suffered badly. We can't tell jokes anymore in case it's considered racist or it upsets anyone. Don't these Politically Correct people realise that the clue is in the word "joke",which my dictionary quite rightly defines as "something said in fun or jest" or "to say something in fun or teasing rather than in earnest?"

Try organising an event or trip and you find yourself tied up in the endless red tape created by the Health & Safety Executive. These people are all part of the 'Nanny State' (state control) which insists in sticking its nose into every aspect of our lives and telling us how to live it!

Just in case there is anyone left in the country that might still be enjoying themselves - let's ban smoking, fox hunting and let feminists launch a totally unfounded attack on men as rapists.

That is the sad state of the UK today. But overwhelmed by their own success with political correctness, the left have something else just as sinister up their sleeve so they can expand their power and control over us even more - the Great Global Warming scam! Same methodology - an idea to appeal to peoples' better nature - let's save the planet - and the same way of enforcing it by peer pressure. Just watch what happens to any scientist who breaks ranks or disagrees - they get the same treatment that Galileo got from the medieval church. David Bellamy was the first I think. It takes a brave man (or a self sufficient one) to come out against these things publicly when you know your future livelihood may be at risk.

Politically correct people can't stand reality or see that things have evolved to be as they are for good reasons. Politically correct people remind me of ostriches - they bury their heads in the sand and then proceed to talk out of the only orifice that still remains above ground.

So don't let anyone fool you that political correctness is just about being "nice to people", tolerant and treating them with proper respect. That's called good manners. Political correctness has been deliberately designed to subvert free speech, debate and common sense, replacing these with a ruthlessly enforced set of left wing ideas. Far from being tolerant, politically correct people are the most intolerant of all people and have the worst manners. They refuse to debate subjects (as their views don't stand up to the most elementary scrutiny), preferring just to scream abuse at you.

To read more about how political correctness has replaced British politics and how it affects specific subjects, just select them on the sidebar. In case you get too depressed doing so, I have included some lighter reading as well.

Source: Source: Political Correctness - The Awful Truth


Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?


There are dangerous currents running through America's politics and the way we confront them is crucial.

All through the dark years of the Bush Administration, progressives watched in horror as Constitutional protections vanished, nativist rhetoric ratcheted up, hate speech turned into intimidation and violence, and the president of the United States seized for himself powers only demanded by history's worst dictators. With each new outrage, the small handful of us who'd made ourselves experts on right-wing culture and politics would hear once again from worried readers: Is this it? Have we finally become a fascist state? Are we there yet?

And every time this question got asked, people like Chip Berlet and Dave Neiwert and Fred Clarkson and yours truly would look up from our maps like a parent on a long drive, and smile a wan smile of reassurance. "Wellll...we're on a bad road, and if we don't change course, we could end up there soon enough. But there's also still plenty of time and opportunity to turn back. Watch, but don't worry. As bad as this looks: no -- we are not there yet."

In tracking the mileage on this trip to perdition, many of us relied on the work of historian Robert Paxton, who is probably the world's pre-eminent scholar on the subject of how countries turn fascist. In a 1998 paper published in The Journal of Modern History, Paxton argued that the best way to recognize emerging fascist movements isn't by their rhetoric, their politics, or their aesthetics. Rather, he said, mature democracies turn fascist by a recognizable process, a set of five stages that may be the most important family resemblance that links all the whole motley collection of 20th Century fascisms together. According to our reading of Paxton's stages, we weren't there yet. There were certain signs -- one in particular -- we were keeping an eye out for, and we just weren't seeing it.

And now we are. In fact, if you know what you're looking for, it's suddenly everywhere. It's odd that I haven't been asked for quite a while; but if you asked me today, I'd tell you that if we're not there right now, we've certainly taken that last turn into the parking lot and are now looking for a space. Either way, our fascist American future now looms very large in the front windshield -- and those of us who value American democracy need to understand how we got here, what's changing now, and what's at stake in the very near future if these people are allowed to win -- or even hold their ground.

What is fascism?
The word has been bandied about by so many people so wrongly for so long that, as Paxton points out, "Everybody is somebody else's fascist." Given that, I always like to start these conversations by revisiting Paxton's essential definition of the term:

"Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline."

Elsewhere, he refines this further as

"a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

.
Jonah Goldberg aside, that's a basic definition most legitimate scholars in the field can agree on, and the one I'll be referring to here.

From proto-fascism to the tipping point
According to Paxton, fascism unfolds in five stages. The first two are pretty solidly behind us -- and the third should be of particular interest to progressives right now.

In the first stage, a rural movement emerges to effect some kind of nationalist renewal (what Roger Griffin calls "palingenesis" -- a phoenix-like rebirth from the ashes). They come together to restore a broken social order, always drawing on themes of unity, order, and purity. Reason is rejected in favor of passionate emotion. The way the organizing story is told varies from country to country; but it's always rooted in the promise of restoring lost national pride by resurrecting the culture's traditional myths and values, and purging society of the toxic influence of the outsiders and intellectuals who are blamed for their current misery.

Fascism only grows in the disturbed soil of a mature democracy in crisis. Paxton suggests that the Ku Klux Klan, which formed in reaction to post-Civil War Reconstruction, may in fact be the first authentically fascist movement in modern times. Almost every major country in Europe sprouted a proto-fascist movement in the wretched years following WWI (when the Klan enjoyed a major resurgence here as well) -- but most of them stalled either at this first stage, or the next one.

As Rick Perlstein documented in his two books on Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, modern American conservatism was built on these same themes. From "Morning in America" to the Rapture-ready religious right to the white nationalism promoted by the GOP through various gradients of racist groups, it's easy to trace how American proto-fascism offered redemption from the upheavals of the 1960s by promising to restore the innocence of a traditional, white, Christian, male-dominated America. This vision has been so thoroughly embraced that the entire Republican party now openly defines itself along these lines. At this late stage, it's blatantly racist, sexist, repressed, exclusionary, and permanently addicted to the politics of fear and rage. Worse: it doesn't have a moment's shame about any of it. No apologies, to anyone. These same narrative threads have woven their way through every fascist movement in history.

In the second stage, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country; and almost all of them came to power very specifically by offering themselves as informal goon squads organized to intimidate farmworkers on behalf of the large landowners. The KKK disenfranchised black sharecroppers and set itself up as the enforcement wing of Jim Crow. The Italian Squadristi and the German Brownshirts made their bones breaking up farmers' strikes. And these days, GOP-sanctioned anti-immigrant groups make life hell for Hispanic agricultural workers in the US. As violence against random Hispanics (citizens and otherwise) increases, the right-wing goon squads are getting basic training that, if the pattern holds, they may eventually use to intimidate the rest of us.

Paxton wrote that succeeding at the second stage "depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner." He further noted that Hitler and Mussolini both took power under these same circumstances: "deadlock of constitutional government (produced in part by the polarization that the fascists abetted); conservative leaders who felt threatened by the loss of their capacity to keep the population under control at a moment of massive popular mobilization; an advancing Left; and conservative leaders who refused to work with that Left and who felt unable to continue to govern against the Left without further reinforcement."

And more ominously: "The most important variables...are the conservative elites' willingness to work with the fascists (along with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of the fascist leaders) and the depth of the crisis that induces them to cooperate."

That description sounds eerily like the dire straits our Congressional Republicans find themselves in right now. Though the GOP has been humiliated, rejected, and reduced to rump status by a series of epic national catastrophes mostly of its own making, its leadership can't even imagine governing cooperatively with the newly mobilized and ascendant Democrats. Lacking legitimate routes back to power, their last hope is to invest the hardcore remainder of their base with an undeserved legitimacy, recruit them as shock troops, and overthrow American democracy by force. If they can't win elections or policy fights, they're more than willing to take it to the streets, and seize power by bullying Americans into silence and complicity.

When that unholy alliance is made, the third stage -- the transition to full-fledged government fascism -- begins.

The third stage: being there
All through the Bush years, progressive right-wing watchers refused to call it "fascism" because, though we kept looking, we never saw clear signs of a deliberate, committed institutional partnership forming between America's conservative elites and its emerging homegrown brownshirt horde. We caught tantalizing signs of brief flirtations -- passing political alliances, money passing hands, far-right moonbat talking points flying out of the mouths of "mainstream" conservative leaders. But it was all circumstantial, and fairly transitory. The two sides kept a discreet distance from each other, at least in public. What went on behind closed doors, we could only guess. They certainly didn't act like a married couple.

Now, the guessing game is over. We know beyond doubt that the Teabag movement was created out of whole cloth by astroturf groups like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks and Tim Phillips' Americans for Prosperity, with massive media help from FOX News. We see the Birther fracas -- the kind of urban myth-making that should have never made it out of the pages of the National Enquirer -- being openly ratified by Congressional Republicans. We've seen Armey's own professionally-produced field manual that carefully instructs conservative goon squads in the fine art of disrupting the democratic governing process -- and the film of public officials being terrorized and threatened to the point where some of them required armed escorts to leave the building. We've seen Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to "a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress."

This is the sign we were waiting for -- the one that tells us that yes, kids: we are there now. America's conservative elites have openly thrown in with the country's legions of discontented far right thugs. They have explicitly deputized them and empowered them to act as their enforcement arm on America's streets, sanctioning the physical harassment and intimidation of workers, liberals, and public officials who won't do their political or economic bidding.

This is the catalyzing moment at which honest-to-Hitler fascism begins. It's also our very last chance to stop it.

The fail-safe point
According to Paxton, the forging of this third-stage alliance is the make-or-break moment -- and the worst part of it is that by the time you've arrived at that point, it's probably too late to stop it. From here, it escalates, as minor thuggery turns into beatings, killings, and systematic tagging of certain groups for elimination, all directed by people at the very top of the power structure. After Labor Day, when Democratic senators and representatives go back to Washington, the mobs now being created to harass them will remain to run the same tactics -- escalated and perfected with each new use -- against anyone in town whose color, religion, or politics they don't like. In some places, they're already making notes and taking names.

Where's the danger line? Paxton offers three quick questions that point us straight at it:

1. Are [neo- or protofascisms] becoming rooted as parties that represent major interests and feelings and wield major influence on the political scene?

2. Is the economic or constitutional system in a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities?

3. Is a rapid political mobilization threatening to escape the control of traditional elites, to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge?

By my reckoning, we're three for three. That's too close. Way too close.

The Road Ahead
History tells us that once this alliance catalyzes and makes a successful bid for power, there's no way off this ride. As Dave Neiwert wrote in his recent book, The Eliminationists, "if we can only identify fascism in its mature form—the goose-stepping brownshirts, the full-fledged use of violence and intimidation tactics, the mass rallies—then it will be far too late to stop it." Paxton (who presciently warned that "An authentic popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black") agrees that if a corporate/brownshirt alliance gets a toehold -- as ours is now scrambling to do -- it can very quickly rise to power and destroy the last vestiges of democratic government. Once they start racking up wins, the country will be doomed to take the whole ugly trip through the last two stages, with no turnoffs or pit stops between now and the end.

What awaits us? In stage four, as the duo assumes full control of the country, power struggles emerge between the brownshirt-bred party faithful and the institutions of the conservative elites -- church, military, professions, and business. The character of the regime is determined by who gets the upper hand. If the party members (who gained power through street thuggery) win, an authoritarian police state may well follow. If the conservatives can get them back under control, a more traditional theocracy, corporatocracy, or military regime can re-emerge over time. But in neither case will the results resemble the democracy that this alliance overthrew.

Paxton characterizes stage five as "radicalization or entropy." Radicalization is likely if the new regime scores a big military victory, which consolidates its power and whets its appetite for expansion and large-scale social engineering. (See: Germany) In the absence of a radicalizing event, entropy may set in, as the state gets lost in its own purposes and degenerates into incoherence. (See: Italy)

It's so easy right now to look at the melee on the right and discount it as pure political theater of the most absurdly ridiculous kind. It's a freaking puppet show. These people can't be serious. Sure, they're angry -- but they're also a minority, out of power and reduced to throwing tantrums. Grown-ups need to worry about them about as much as you'd worry about a furious five-year-old threatening to hold her breath until she turned blue.

Unfortunately, all the noise and bluster actually obscures the danger. These people are as serious as a lynch mob, and have already taken the first steps toward becoming one. And they're going to walk taller and louder and prouder now that their bumbling efforts at civil disobedience are being committed with the full sanction and support of the country's most powerful people, who are cynically using them in a last-ditch effort to save their own places of profit and prestige.

We've arrived. We are now parked on the exact spot where our best experts tell us full-blown fascism is born. Every day that the conservatives in Congress, the right-wing talking heads, and their noisy minions are allowed to hold up our ability to govern the country is another day we're slowly creeping across the final line beyond which, history tells us, no country has ever been able to return.

Source: Alternet

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

U.S. carrying out “targeted killings”



Media reports recently exposed efforts by the Bush administration to create a CIA “assassination squad” so secret that former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the agency to keep Congress in the dark about it. The Wall Street Journal called it a secret plan to “capture or kill al Qaida operatives”; on Thursday, the Washington Post said the program was about to be activated when CIA director Leon Panetta pulled the plug.

But the blaring headlines, and the buzz in the blogosphere, are not just due to more evidence of the ex-veep’s addiction to executive power and behind-the-scenes machinations. It’s that word “assassinate.” Most observers assume that assassination is specifically proscribed by U.S. policy. Except it isn’t, exactly, and while the secret CIA assassination program canceled by Panetta may never have claimed a victim, the U.S. is already carrying out actions that look nearly exactly like assassinations, and doing so within the guidelines of domestic and international law. The United States has had plenty of legal latitude to carry out targeted killings during the so-called war on terror — and has been exercising that option vigorously for the past eight years.

The United States, in fact, has been targeting and eliminating specific al-Qaida and Taliban operatives ever since Congress authorized the use of force against them in September 2001. Just the other day, what were probably unmanned CIA drones killed 43 militants in Pakistan as part of the still unsuccessful effort to assassinate just one man, Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

Early last year, Salon reported from the Middle East on targeted killings carried out by the U.S. Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. That article explored the sometimes-excruciating process, assisted by military attorneys, of trying to decide who could be killed from the air and under what circumstances, while simultaneously trying not to kill innocent civilians. The military officials at the installation Salon visited were definitely engaged in targeted killing — yet they objected to the use of the term “targeted killing,” much less “assassination.”

Gary Solis, an expert on military law at Georgetown University, said the Bush administration — and now the Obama administration — would take umbrage at characterizing the ongoing CIA drone attacks on specific targets as assassinations. “‘Assassination’ is a civilian term for a politically motivated murder,” Solis said. “Soldiers don’t assassinate. They kill.”

Whatever phrase we use to describe the process, clearly the U.S. has been engaged in targeted killing during the past eight years. So what about those U.S. policies that expressly forbid assassination? It may generate flashbacks to the tortured debate over torture, but it all comes down to semantics. Assassination is OK — as long as you don’t use the word “assassination.”

In 1975, the U.S. Senate formed an 11-member commission called the Church Committee, led by Idaho Sen. Frank Church, to investigate the activities of the CIA. The Church Committee’s many reports detailed efforts by the agency to assassinate such foreign leaders as Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba and Rafael Trujillo. Reacting to the committee’s findings, Gerald Ford was the first president to issue what would become a series of executive orders limiting targeted political killings. Ford’s Executive Order 11905 of Feb. 18, 1976, included a specific prohibition of assassination that said, “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” Jimmy Carter reaffirmed that executive order with his own, as did Ronald Reagan; their versions of the order dropped the modifier “political” from “assassination.” There is no public indication that any president since has rescinded Reagan’s order, so it likely remains in place.

But where there’s a will, there’s a way. When the state wants to kill someone, it has to come up with a rationale for describing that killing as something other than assassination. There are effectively three rules the U.S. government must follow in order to be able to argue that a killing is in accordance with both domestic and international law, and is not an “assassination.” First, the killing must be a military act, an act of war. Second, the target must be definable as military or a civilian engaging in hostile acts against the United States. Third, if the killing takes place within a state with which the U.S. is not at war, the U.S. must have the permission of that country’s government to carry out the hit. The U.S. pursuit of Taliban and al-Qaida targets follows those rules — for the most part — and is compliant with domestic and international law — in theory.

The United States is at war with al-Qaida. The president has the authority to conduct limited military action without congressional approval, but for sustained military action the executive branch needs to be granted legal license by the legislative branch. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” The president then signed a secret intelligence “finding” authorizing the CIA to hunt and kill just those kinds of “persons.”

Internationally, the Law of Armed Conflict, that web of treaties including the Geneva Conventions, allows the killing of enemy combatants or even civilians engaged in hostile acts against the United States. Legally, it does not matter where the hit occurs. As long as the U.S. government has the permission of the government where the killing takes place, the killing can occur anywhere in the world. It also does not matter that the people “pulling the trigger” — deploying the drones — are civilian CIA agents, not soldiers. “That is the CIA’s involvement in an armed conflict,” Solis explained. “We have the CIA flying drones killing people who we conceive to be combatants” with the permission of the country where the strikes occur.

But fighting a war against a stateless organization is complicated. The “war on terror” is conducted against anybody deemed the enemy anywhere in the world. The tricky part comes in trying to decide who fits the definition of somebody carrying out hostile acts against the United States. A suspected bomb maker with no uniform? What if he hasn’t made a bomb in a week? A month? A year? Solis said most attorneys would view President Clinton’s 1998 cruise missile strike aimed, in part, at Osama bin Laden as a military operation short of war, not as an assassination attempt. It was undertaken in response to al-Qaida’s attack on the USS Cole, which was clearly a hostile act.

The killing of a person engaged in hostile acts, even by an “assassination squad” of secret agents, would not violate international law — specifically U.N. charter provisions on sovereignty — unless the United States carried out an assassination in a foreign country without the foreign government’s consent. “International law says the U.S. can’t go into country X and do military operations without that country’s consent,” explained David Koplow, a professor specializing in international law and national security law at Georgetown University. “Internationally, so long as you are doing it with the permission of the host country, it is no problem.”

Given this legal framework, Pakistan’s complaints about U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan probably reflect domestic political considerations there, observers speculate, rather than any lack of consent. Pakistan likely quietly gave the CIA the green light. Similarly, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan documented in the Salon article last year passed legal muster since the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan consented.

Koplow and other experts on international law said while few details of Cheney’s alleged assassination squad are publicly available, legally at least, it’s doesn’t sound like a far stretch from current CIA activities. Ironically, the attorneys add, Cheney could theoretically face stiffer legal consequences under U.S. law for failing to inform Congress about plans for CIA assassinations than he would have had he carried them out. Cheney’s reported decision not to inform Congress might have violated the 1947 National Security Act, which requires that the intelligence committees in Congress are “kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.”

However, as the Washington Post article states, the intelligence finding that gave rise to the program “imposed no geographical limitations on the agency’s actions.” That raises the possibility that the program would have violated sovereignty. Solis speculated that Cheney’s assassination squad could have been conceived to go a step further and send civilian agents into foreign countries without permission to kill individual people. “Other countries would take a very dim view of that,” he said.

Did the Cheney assassination ring contemplate assassinations in other countries without that country’s permission, which would violate international law? Even if it did, Cheney would likely have escaped sanction, provided he didn’t try to use his passport much. United States domestic law contains no enforcement mechanism for violating a foreign country’s sovereignty, attorneys say. In short, there is no domestic tool to hold Cheney legally liable even if he set up and ran an assassination squad that was taking out al-Qaida operatives in Canada. “Would there be a domestic prosecution?” noted Scott Silliman, an expert on international law at Duke Law. “No. There is nothing there.” But perhaps, like Augusto Pinochet, Cheney could’ve found himself unable to travel abroad without fearing arrest.

Mark Benjamin

Source: RINF News

Bookmark and Share