This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
Submitted by Gonzalo Lira
But with yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.
First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?
A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.
In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)
What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.
A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.
A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.
The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.
For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.
Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization.
The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.
My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.
In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who is not—without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is curtailed—as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.
For example, if the Executive—in the form of the Secretary of State—decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech—nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International.
But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks—including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses—would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.
This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a police-state. The state determines—unilaterally—who is detrimental to its interests. The state then represses that person or group.
By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine who is a terrorist and who is not—and therefore has the right to silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to speak to them, or hear them.
And let's just say that, after jumping through years of judicial hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.
So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the terrorists—and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.
Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.
»
- 45685 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Thanks for that MOVE retrospective pointer. Everyone (especially those who remember it) should view the presentation. With that history in mind, the Waco tragedy is all the more surreal:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/93137669.html
Bendromeda Strain
WACO and Ruby Ridge were rural.
Move was in a the middle of a major US city. So was the SLA shootout. Unreal that those were acceptable levels of violence.
Police = Heroes, always makes for great headlines.
How about not taking your daily dose of fluoride?
"Remember kids, brush your teeth three times a day. Now show us your nice bright colgate smile. Now sit, roll, stay. Gooood boy. Gooood boy. Now go watch your World Cup!"
i'd put it in the in the underarm deoderants too.
How about mandatory childhood vaccinations. Certainly some are good, but should parents not be allowed to research and carefully weigh risks of the vaccination vs. risks of the disease? I do believe kids are over-vaccinated today.
Yeah, next we wont even be able to question ourselves...bastards. pfff where is all this going to end? its soooo tragic.
Home schooling?
home schooling needs to be reported to the school district that the property resides.
maybe, not sure home gets inspected beginning of each school year in MA.
Home schoolers are treated fairly well in Texas. Universities are not allowed to discriminate against home schoolers in admission. If you have the ACT/SAT scores required, you are in. Home schooling has exceptional track record in ACT/SAT results, since the kids are actually taught stuff, instead of reading Barnie's Monkey Spanking books, or whatever they are teaching in public schools now days.
Hello...When were we not?
Lincoln won, bitchez... had JWB had the timing of LHO then things might have been different.
different johnson, different results? slavery to what, 1876? jim crow to the disco era?
Speech is not protected speech, it is material support when construed to be in support of what the state calls a terrorist.
yet money is protected speech when employed by a corporation.
With this kind of Orwellian non-logic now in place, can the end game be far away? Or is it already underway?
i have bad news for you.
the end game is not built into the system. you have to be sacrificed for it when you act.
bringin you have noted a particularly ironic comparison. a bit like the ability during the civil war to purchase someone (effectively) to avoid the draft to fight the war to end the purchase of people, but without the greater good at the end.
dam. was that really an option? good-lord.
Yeah, all kinds of 'business' around the Civil War.
Tyler, kindly set up a bank in which we people here can keep deposits. It's not like anyone has any money left, so sure, it's a symbolic thing and who knows, your team is probably unqualified to do that, but the world needs options and wrongly or rightly, your the only one who has any.
Yo, Tic...
Stop trying to corrupt poor Tyler. He's just an honest algorithm trying to improve the lot of his human creators. Give him his own bank and he could end up slithering into the world of HFT algorithms.
Fascist, the US? Yes.
One need look no farther than Fannie's recent release about strategic defaulters v. the handling of Tishman Speyer by the NY Fed.
Police state, the US? Yes.
See my above remarks. Selective and capricious enforcement of the law is the norm and the rule.
In fact I think we can safely say at this point that the US is an oligarchic corporatist police state, and it is of course supported by a massive federal bureaucracy and taxing apparatus. The Republic is dead, along with state power, it's illusion is window dressing, and it's promise of representation has been reduced to a farcical and fully corrupted two party duopoly.
I suspect that the notion of whether a given country is a fascist state or not is to a certain degree determined by whether one is in favor of the party in power. However, overall I think that the US began its slippery slope into fascism in the 1880s, when the Supreme Court determined that corporations were considered to be people with regards to the constitution, largely due to a back door effort on the part of the railroad companies of the time.
It reached its first apex in the 1920s, as the Federal Reserve began to assert its authority and power. It waned during the 1930s as the Depression crushed many of the nascent corporations (though keep in mind that even during the 1930s, there were many in the US, especially those in the upper classes, that found the Fascist model to be an admirable one and were openly sympathetic to the emerging Nazi regime in Germany). By the 1950s many of the aspects of Fascism began to fall back into place as the wartime industries, rich with Government profits, began to establish the foundations that would insure that there would be more "police actions" in the future.
We're in what I believe to be the apex of the Fascist era - the distinction between government and the corporate world has been blurring for the last several decades, the Supreme Court has been stacked with pro-business judges that have been quietly cementing these ties into the legal code, and high finance and the petroleum industry has effectively captured much of the regulatory mechanism that the government ordinarily performs.
I'm always rather astonished by the number of people who consider Obama to be some form of Socialist. Politically, except in a few key social arenas, he's generally been slightly right of center. That he's a populist goes without saying, but if you look at his political track record, you see a fairly mainstream president who's more concerned with retaining the status quo than he is with significantly changing the system. I doubt seriously that the system that exists today would let anyone even remotely likely to challenge it become President.
What...you see a fairly mainstream president who's more concerned with retaining the status quo than he is with significantly changing the system.
Obama has "fundamentally changed the system" just has he promised too do!
ObamaCare
Stimulus
Bailouts
Cash for clunkers/caulkers
Financial reform
Fired two Generals
Both wars still humming along
Bows to everyone and their mother
Beer summit
And on and on and on
Not even two years on!
Really..............
obamacare: like medicare but worse for people and better for corporations. stimulus: deficit spending in a depression, indeed different from the bushes and reagan who were deficit spenders in expansions. bailouts: exactly the same as the w. bush treasury dept (are you even paying attention?). cash for clunkers/caulkers: minor (expired) subsidies for consumer spending, miniscule compared to mortgage interest deductibility. both wars, w. bush started but not ended. i agree that bows to everyone and their (sic) mother and the beer summit are radically new and frightening apparitions in our national politics. you wouldn't be a blind partisan would you? the question is internally contradictory.
Great post, especially your remarks about Obama being thought of as a "socialist". I find that astounding as well.
obama truly appears to be a status quo kind of guy. unfortunately the status quo he inherited was george w. bush's police state on training wheels, two real wars and counting against islamic countries, one a major drug producer, and a "war" on drugs, an israel policy to the right of ariel sharon, a political system utterly corrupted by corporate campaign contributions and a deflationary depression.
You seem like you're apologizing for Obama. You seem to be saying that the way things are aren't the way Obama wants them. That he is, grudgingly, continuing what was there when he arrived.
If so, please consider that he's just a shill and that the way things are are exactly how he wants them.
Just thought I'd add my support to your position jeff... all this Obama bashing (he is far from perfect but hardly the author of the mess America is in) is living proof of just how effective the right wing race baiting, disinformation program really is... Karl Rove must be so proud!
Too bad all this vitriol couldn't be directed toward finding solutions.
there *you* go, doing the *exact* thing you decry
right-wing? race-baiting? disinformation?
is the national debt disinformation? is my having to buy a health-care i never wanted package untrue?, are these bailouts just sunday comic strip stories? wake up and drop the partisan prattle.
i'm not right wing, and i don't care if he's colored fuscia. his horrid policies are not in my personal or family's better long-term interests. so *i don't like what he's doing*. can you grok that reality? you certainly aren't going to 'fix' me.
re: your last thought - agreed, but not many solutions that aren't his/theirs are being taken too seriously - it's the nature of either party in power, but, as 'too bad' as that might be, this polarization is no accident.
(edit - i'm no lover of bush, nor do i think obama was given much to work with, but he's no helpless victim here... 'never waste a good crisis'... be afraid - watch the other hand.)
Destroy corporate personage!
"By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine who is a terrorist and who is not"
as everyone knows the supreme court and congress are totally over represented by zionists and no one loves to throw the "terrorist" label around like they do.
So if you are an American and your veiws / actions are in the best interests of America but in opposition to those of the zionists in charge of the country you will be labelled a terrorist and punished accordingly.
the land of the free? that was sooo last century
Look inside your soul. There isn't a single instance of anti-Semitism (that often parades as anti-Zionism as a disguise, though not always, to be sure), that is not motivated by envy or jealosy or feelings of inadequacy, IMnotsoHO.
so the statement, which was anti-zionist, but which might also be anti-semitic (you mean anti-jew) in disguise, but might not be, "to be sure". are we talking three groups here or only two: non-anti-jew anti-zionists, anti-jew anti-zionists, and straight up anti-jews who make no pretense of anti-zionism (indeed might cheer on israel as a means of further killing jews). or are all anti-zionists anti-jew? in either case, if anti-jew, always motivated by envy, jealosy or feelings of inadequacy. and you know this how?
The fallacy quoted above is the main reason the Jews have been the world's cyclical atrocity punching bags for 5,000 years. The previous poster would have you believe that the Jews have never done anything to antagonize anybody. Not once, ever. Jews are angels, and Talmudic culture is a giving, caring culture. No matter when or where the Jews have gone, people have hated them. But, I was taught in the idiot factory I was sent to, they did nothing to deserve it.
And I believed it until I lived a little. And what I found was that a large proportion of Jews subscribe to a Talmudic culture that isolates its adherents, ostracizes it's non-adherents, and teaches to treat others poorly.
The Jews belief that they are faultless in contributing to their own historical abuses is no different than, for example, blacks in the U.S. arguing that their current horrific condition is unrelated to their culture. It is the ultimate derogation of their presonal responsibility, and it functions to assure cyclical repeats.
It's clear as day that Israel, applying Talmudic culture, is making enemies the world over. The storming of the ship in international waters and the murder of Turks on board is just the latest scene in the opening act. Of course, the faultless adherents of the Talmud will argue that the boarding and murder were justified and that those of us who are angry with the Jewish state, and the Jewish culture that allowed the behaviour, are "jealous"? Is that it? Or I'm inadequate? Is that it?
I could spend two days writing about all the mistreatment of others I have seen by some (not all, but a large proportion) Jews.
It's the New Testament, so I suppose the Jews may not be familiar with it - it goes - "for whatever one sows, that will he also reap." It's essentially the prototype for "karma is a bitch." And I like to think of it as a restatement of Jesus' main point - That one should treat others as one would like to be treated. I'm not a Christian, but I do live by that rule. Perhaps the adherents of the Talmudic culture should consider it as well.
they blame women sometimes too for provoking their rape by wearing a revealing dress.
personally, i have never suffered at the hands of jews. if they dont want to hang out with non jews, so what? Is that reason to kill them? Quakers dont hang out with non Quakers and no body wants to kill them.
With 2/3 of the earth conquored by islam I think we have bigger problems on our hands than the 0.004% of jews.
My wife's uncle was murdered by muslims for the crime of being buddhist. His cremation was paid for by the last remaining jewish family in the region, although the jewish family did not even know him.
His cremation was "financed" by them, in other words. Hmmmm.
no, paid for. as in charity. Your comment is not really useful. Or kind.
Charitable contribution. Thanks for clearing that up.
Dude, that is freaking hilarious. Well done, notwithstanding the "unkind" namby pamby and the junkers. Ha!
Ah! But your analogy is aweful! The equivalent would be the woman who hits her husband with the broom and then cries "domestic violence" when he throws it back!
Then you haven't met many Jews. It's not a question of suffering, in any case. It's a question of why people don't like them. Example - I worked for a Jew who was a great guy AS LONG AS what you were doing helped him. He was your best friend. I watched a half dozen people bust ass for this guy over the years and I watched him hang them all out to dry as soon as they decided they wanted to move in a different direction. It's a question of culture. His culture was quite plain to me after some years - he was only interested in you to the extent you could further his own goals.
There's never a reason to kill anybody, unless you're defending your own life or those around you. But Hitler didn't hate the Jews because they were separatists. He hated them because he believed that the Jewish bankers sold out Germany in WWI, even as they lived in Germany.
I can't find any Muslims hurting the U.S.. I can easily find Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Rahm Israel Emanuel (yes, that is his middle name), Madoff, and a hundred others in positions of power who are devastating this country. It's a question of culture. The culture of the Madoffs of the world is straightforward - no allegiance to anybody but self, and to other Jews as long as it helps self.
The stereotype that Jews are cheap is based on the real world phenomenon that the culture of most Jews is to take care of self at the expense of all others. Giving tips, giving charity, and so on, are not in furtherance of self, and so are eschewed. It's a cultural thing. I was having pizza with a dude in grad school once - I had no idea what his ethnicity was. Me, him, one other dude. Check came. It was 9 bucks. Me and the other guy threw in 4 bucks each. He put in two. When the other guy asks him why he's only putting in two, he says that we each had an extra piece and he thought that we shouldn't tip because all the waitress did was bring us the pizza. Turns out he was a Jew. After that type of thing happens a few dozen times, what conclusion should I draw other than the common culture is causative?
Like I said. The worst thing the Jews can do is continue propagating their own desperate delusion that they are not partly responsible for their own problems. I always giggle a bit when I hear them say, "never again!"
Not only is it going to happen again, it's going to happen again sooner rather than later.
These guys are a bigger worry to me than your pizza delivery guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHPt6ehelwA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXxDAVshjgU
look inside your own.
how about being motivated by disgust?
how about having anti israeli-militarist opinions because they "want to be mad dogs" . go be mad dogs on your own money.
einstein said ages ago on Israel "Nationalism is the problem, not the solution. "
Zionist alert! Zionist Alert! so what are you saying escapeclaws? that you cant even enter into a debate about zionism without raising the "anti semetic" flag and any one who dares question the repulsive zionist agenda is an anti semite?
you are pathetic. The title of the article posted is "is the US a facist police state?" There is no more facist movement on the face of the planet than zionism. Zionism=Facism. Look up the definitions of both, It's a fact.
jealosy? Inadaquacy? I think everyone now realises what your "escape clause" is. As soon as someone questions your zionist agenda bring the debate down into the gutter by labeling people anti semites.
while this has worked very well for quite a while people are starting to wake up. you might need to come up with another escape clause pretty soon.
Hedge Jobs, you are a sad human being.
Actually and not by your typical Jewish confabulations Jews have always been described both by authorities and by the Jews themselves as victims; so all Jews are motivated by the very same sense of inadequacy and inferiority as described by you yourself. Jews were the original "niggers" who had to always be three times better than the natives to get any job, who couldn't get native women with any amount of money, and who like corporal Upham could never stand up to an unarmed native even if well-armed himself. As the famous German pedant Nietzsche wrote:
In the citation Nietzsche discerns between the Masterrace Romans with the Slave races Chinese Germans Jews with Jews as slaves of the first rank. What Nietzsche describes as Ressentiment I would describe as Envy and Vengeance; so I don't envy Jews at all of course, but instead Jewish envy disgusts me and is cause of my despising Jews.
Actually and not by your typical Jewish confabulations Jews have always been described both by authorities and by the Jews themselves as victims; so all Jews are motivated by the very same sense of inadequacy and inferiority as described by you yourself. Jews were the original "niggers" who had to always be three times better than the natives to get any job, who couldn't get native women with any amount of money, and who like corporal Upham could never stand up to an unarmed native even if well-armed himself. As the famous German pedant Nietzsche wrote:
In the citation Nietzsche discerns between the Masterrace Romans with the Slave races Chinese Germans Jews with Jews as slaves of the first rank. What Nietzsche describes as Ressentiment I would describe as Envy and Vengeance; so I don't envy Jews at all of course, but instead Jewish envy disgusts me and is cause of my despising Jews.
Nothing of any importance happened in Canada with the G20.
Was the Federal Reserve born around a media frenzy?
The real meeting was done in Russia while all the lemmings were protesting somewhere in Canada.
The G20 "meeting" in Toronto was bullshit.
Wonder why you can't take the batteries out of your Iphone?
The really big factor nowadays is surveillance and that is brought to you by the same technology that allows us to participate at Zerohedge--exponentially increasing computer power. There's no limit to the diabolical creativity of surveillance technology--it will come to rival the omniscience of God.
Well, seems to me that many already worship their i-phones, so . . .
"Wonder why you can't take the batteries out of your Iphone?"
Well at least someones been paying attention.
Whenever I wish to go "off the grid" the battery comes out of the cell phone. Now, if I can just get this missle I've been working on into orbit...........
I've considered the possibility that some web site forums could be just information gatherer's, but at this point in my life the consequence just doesn't matter to me...so my baiting of "them" to find truth will continue ;-)
"Wonder why you can't take the batteries out of your Iphone?"
They call it convergence, and by putting more and more personal information on to your Ishit device you make your life more accessible to the NSA.
"Learn not to trust your eyes - they can deceive you'"
"After I am back from USA, I have witnessed and by certain extant participated in the great transformation of China society. Initially, I was very optimistic and supportive about this so called economic reform without political system change. I even remembered that I had an invigorating debate with the wife of one of my American business partner; the topic is about China democracy, human rights, social justice. At that time, I believed that China can not adopt democracy since it will plunge the country into chaos; my argument is that ordinary people are not ready for self governance. The traditional patriarchy society gave totalitarian regime certain legitimacy to rule and stay."
Source:
Open letter from a Chinese Reader- Reflections After 7 Years Away From Home.
A Fascist State is more than police-state.
Welcome to Socialism version 2.0, The New Order Game.
Version 1.0 was Hitlers state. Version 1.01 was Soviet Union.
Absolutely,
It was the same banking families pulling the strings then and it's the same banking families pulling the strings now.
Can you guess which State had Socialism version 1.02?
UK
It's everywhere in the industrialised world...the US and it's constitution is the last to fall.
I lived under a fascist dictatorship during the late 1970s. Let's just say that I agree with this article! Each dictatorship is a different flavor of tyranny, but they all are totalitarian, tyrannical, and repress their people for the benefit of a few. The one where I lived, a military junta, eventually turned power over to an elected government, but now has a socialist president who is consolidating his power and that has no intention of ever turning power back to the people!
I've had the rifle of three soldiers pressed up against my chest so that I could feel the barrel of the gun against my chest, an inch away from my heart. I'll never forget that sensation of that gun against my chest for as long as I live!
I've been caught up in the midst of riots where streets were blocked or closed for days and where travel was shut down. I've seen curfews where not a single soul dared venture out at night for fear of being killed. I've been pulled off of a bus and held captive just because I looked like a foreigner (Arizona doesn't even come close to that). I've been pelted with stones.
I've had bricks thrown through the windows of the car I was riding in as we tried to flee late at night. I was young and stupid, but I'll never forget the terror in the eyes of our driver as we tried to flee the rioting marxist mobs.
I've been forced to pay bribes to to get a visa to enter a country. I've been forced to pay bribes by mobs just to use a street or highway, and I've been chased by mobs. I've been robbed by capricious public officials who sneered at me as they stole from me, while their employees looked on with glee. I had friends that experienced even worse but managed to live to tell me about it. One even took refuge in my house.
I've lived in countries where the entire supreme court of that country was taken by Marxist guerillas and every one of its judges and all of their staffs were butchered. Ironically, the countries where I lived were considered less repressive than others, so the citizens of other countries fled to the country where I was serving. I could go on and on!
Americans have known peace, prosperity, and freedom for so long that they have become blind to its threats. These things have never been so threatened in my lifetime. America's threats are internal threats! Americans have been so sheltered for so long that they are simply blind to tyranny when it stares them in the face. It is staring them in the face NOW! Americans, you have no idea how good you've got it, and your are throwing it all away for a mess of entitlement pottage that is just bondage in disguise!
Obama is seeking to rapidly impose an oligarchical kleptocracy as quickly as he can, and the majority of Americans still don't see the threat. Too many are rubbing their hands in anticipation of the "free stuff" that they're going to get, not even noticing the shackles being quietly slipped around their wrists!
Most dictators in history were elected to office. They didn't always take it by force. Hitler was just one who was elected to office!
Unfortunately, tyranny is so far away from the realm of possibility thinking of Americans that they just refuse to think out of the box and recognize a totalitarian state when it is slowly tightening its grip around their necks. They are blind to it! What is it going to take to awaken America from its death slumber? They think of liberty and Constitutional protections like a brithright that they don't have to preserve or fight for! They are more interested in being entertained and pacified with soccer and baseball games than in preserving their own freedom!
History shows that very few humans, once having lost their freedom, ever see it again in their lifetimes. History also shows that their grandchildren won't either! And history will be very unkind to us if we lose it without even recognizing it!
Tyranny has found a home in America! Americans had better wake up quickly, or they will wake up one day soon and find that the nightmare is not only REAL. It's just BEGINNING!
Excellent post, with the sole exception of the reference to soccer (and maybe baseball!).
frank - as sharp as you write, and as toungue-in-cheek as you intended... i think...
i don't think even you realize the richness of the irony buried in your response.
I think it will be a long time before we see one party rule in Washington like we have now.
Thank you.Excellent post.
America, wake up, 1% of the population is in jails. This is the highest in the world.
We are a fascist state, we just don't realize it.
Media is controlled by 5 groups, your money is controlled by fed and its cabals.
What has happened to hippies soul ? those 60's , 70's demonstrations against war ?
We have 2 wars, most people want to end it, but nobody is protesting on the streets, is
this new normal ? Did we lost the fighting soul ? Are we accepting this fascist state ?
Dude, the hippies are now the Administrators. It's not the L25 they abhor - it's the sugar cube.
cbaba,
"We are a fascist state, we just don't realize it."
As I stated in pevious posts...............millions of Americans have served, in war.
Vietnam,Iraq x's 2,and Trashcanistan(others not known)..............(I mention these 3 simply because of the ages of those are left),WE do realize what's going on, we DO know, and we are not swallowing anything that's coming down from the Mount.
This country is not going to taken over, in the next 6mos, and nothing that's been done(save $$$ damage) cannot be undone.........WHEN WE CHOSE to change it.
So before we get all in a wad, just prepare for the worst, and pray for the Best..........
One reason the SHHTF has not already started, is because those that have been there,done that, know what it means.
And, we mostly all have families. So, until their is absolutely NO other way...........chill.
If it's meant to be, it will happen...........God help us.
thankyou for taking the time to remember and share your lived experiences, sbenard. . . I couldn't agree more, up to and including you noting that amrkns are more concerned with watching staged sporting events than almost anything else.
sbenard, so heartfelt reading your post. sincerely crushed to hear what you had to endure as a very young person. what a reflection you must possess.
your post was absolutely spot on with america.
i really wonder if this country wakes up, are we better off? my thoughts are stay in bed and leave an empty street for me to run for the hills, better.
i don't do crowds, either. hope they aren't insomniac's like me.
Thank you for for sharing your experience. It is very valuable to provide this perspective to the sleeping sheeple.
I am fortunate to have and relish in the history of my ancestors, for whom Freedom was prized above all else by a significan number.
While not a verbatim translation, what follows is the spirit of the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320, Scotland's statement of independence from Britan.
Just substitute "tyrranical dominion" for English rule, and rally the American patriots. Glory and honours are unknown to most in this country. Riches cannot be adequately motivating, or the majority would take the time to learn why they are worse off than their parents and grandparents, why the standard of living has been eroding in the USA for over 30 years.
For as a wise person here once wrote:
I am unwilling to lose everything, especially my Freedom.
Don't be too hard on the Supreme Court.
They are probably more afraid of being snatched away in the night and tortured than we common people. One wrong ruling and this executive will have them hanging in ankle chains counting the dungeon rats up side down.
Sounds like a plan...
Often in life it's more important to know where you're going than where you are. Whatever label we hang on today's paragdigm, be assured that the label we hang on tomorrow's will surely be closer to the society portrayed in "V" or "1984" than the society portrayed in your civics books when you were in school.
Yes, it is fascict state.
I highly recommend "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg; an excellent summary of US progressive movement and its "smiley-faced fascist" proclivities
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841
Chemba
You quote that TWAT Goldberg? Your Daddy ever tell you you are dumber than a box of rocks?
I have a different view. I think we are a free country populated with too many fools.
By "free country" do you mean everything is free, such as housing? From today's Wall Street Urinal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575329130832886238.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews#articleTabs%3Darticle
"Burn baby burn, FIAT inferno!"
who junked *that*?
ben franklin said something like 'maam, you have a republic, if you can keep it..."
there's no doubt that liberty has been taken for granted for a few decades, at least.
fools is too soft a word for the oblivious sheeple i'm surrounded by most days. these folks don't have low IQs either... just major head-in-the-sand-itus... scary.
i'm with you, wb7
Anyone know what kind of cult these generals belong to?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06252010.html
Less careful than the adroit Petraeus, he over-reached himself, possibly because he insists on sleeping only four hours a night, running seven miles at dawn and eating one meal every 24 hours. (Petraeus has the same sort of Spartan life style. Rather than pour out indiscretions to a reporter Petraeus passed out briefly in a Senate hearing two weeks ago, stating later that he'd been dehydrated.)
I guess saying you're dehydrated is more polite than saying you were very nearly bored to death.
anorexics often self-report they feel limiting food intake is one way to feel "in control" when all around them is beyond their control. . .
The mind is sharper when the stomach is empty. You can always burn fat reserves.
. . .after the body burns muscle - it tends to save the fat for "emergencies". . .
The US is definitely a police state and has been since the introduction of prohibition in the early 20th century. But it is debatable whether or not the US is also a fascist state. Below are the 14 defining characteristics off fascism: Many, but not all, of the characteristics apply to the US but the characteristics of fascism more correctly describe islamic states than the US. For example, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FACISM
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
The US fulfill all the above criteria.
laosuwan
"The US is definitely a police state and has been since the introduction of prohibition in the early 20th century."
I beg to differ. The US has ALWAYS been a police state. Fascist state,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition,
how far back you want to stretch that? Lincoln?
The Constitution was written by rich white males who wanted to protect their wealth. Even other white males of different nationalities were treated like shit. Same with those of other religions.
I would say that the majority of citizens have labored under the illusion of freedom.
to a degree you may have a point however the Republic is a national society based upon laws and a legal system the citizens can use to protect those inalienable rights and the US constitution.
The filth in power now spit and the Constitution and no longer have the consent of the governed. Every law Obama has passed have been deeply unpopular (apart from stem cell research perhaps) and against the interest of the citizens but now the courts are filled with corrupted officials.
The police state in the US has gone from benign to fascist in the last 10 year.
from its inception the usa was always about the individual not the nation. read the constitution. All that changed after prohibitionand when the supreme court for the first time started watering down the freedom from unreasonable searches. Ever since then it has been about weakening the consitution's protection of individual liberty that has brought us towards facism. I dont buy the arguement it was always that way.
everyone wants to protect their wealth, that's the point of having a country.
It s possible freedom was just an illusion all that time but that is not the same thing as facism.
laosuwan
I guess you aren't, Black, a Native American, A woman, A Mormon, so on.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/howard_zinn_and_the_cons...
Critical Interpretation of the Constitution
Contrary to the traditional reading, Zinn quotes historian Charles Beard, writing in the twentieth century, to illustrate a critical reading of the Constitution:
“Inasmuch as the primary object of government…is the making of the rules which
determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose
rights are thus to be determined must perforce (by necessity) obtain from the government
such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their
economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.”
The idea, Zinn argues, is that the rich, in order to secure their own interests and economic status, must “either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates.” Beard received censure and indignation for his suggestion, most notably from the New Your Times, but Zinn offers evidence which to support Beard’s reading.
Evidence for Critical Interpretation
In the first place, Beard conducted an analysis of the economic backgrounds of the fifty-five men who met in Philadelphia and drafted the Constitution. Many were lawyers, a majority were wealthy men through land and slave ownership, manufacturing or shipping; “half of them had money loaned out at interest,” and “according to the records of the Treasury Department” forty of them held government bonds.
As such, Beard concludes that a majority of those who drafted the Constitution needed a strong federal government in order to protect their economic interests: “the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands…” Essentially, the drafters sought to protect their interests through mechanisms put in place directly in the Constitution.
Equally important, Beard showed, was the explicit fact that four groups were not represented at the Constitutional Convention: “slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property.” Because they were not represented at the Convention their interests were not reflected in the Constitution, in effect compromising the “universal” nature of the document. Moreover, because voting rights in most states were endowed on the basis of property ownership, men without property, women, the poor, Indians, and slaves were excluded from the notion of representative government.
Further compromised at the Convention was the provision for popular elections, and thus direct representation. Because although The House of Representatives elected officials on the basis of popular elections, it still remained that voting rights were allowed for those who had property (i.e. the wealthy). Also, Senate members were elected, at the time, by state legislators; and as is still the case, the Electoral College, not the popular vote, elects the President. And lastly, the main judiciary body for the nation, the Supreme Court, was structured to have its members elected by the President.
Conclusion
This interpretation of the drafting of the Constitution is surely a controversial one. But, Zinn asks, “…[I]s the aim of government simply to maintain order..? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral referees but participants?”
Even if the drafters did not primarily represent their own personal economic safety, but a broader economic class which they were part of, it still remains, argues Zinn, that a critical “…interpretation makes sense when one looks at the economic interests, the social backgrounds, of the makers of the Constitution.”
Looks to me like the crazy bastards that flew airplanes into buildings are winning.
If you are referring to the "planes" that hit the WTC and PENTAgon, well, they were not flown by the men that trained in Florida flight schools because those men failed their written tests and were not even allowed on the flight simulator.
Who was actually flying them? (Or maybe you think they were not planes at all, but missiles.) And how did they get all of that demolition material into the buildings without anyone noticing? Where did they find the people to play the grieving families of the passengers and flight crews who weren't actually on those planes? Where did they get the actors to play the parts of the family members of the passengers who called during the event? Can you point me to evidence that could used to get an indictment of any individual who was really involved in pulling this off? Can you explain to me why the need to go through the motions of faking plane crashes into buildings when a simple demolition would have sufficed? And can you explain to me why if you believe that your government was behind this heinous crime you are sitting on you ass posting to a blog rather than running through the streets throwing Molotov cocktails into government buildings?
+ a gazillion.
The 911 calls from passengers describing their attackers and their actions apparently mean nothing.
Likewise, the passengers struggling with the hijackers heard on the cockpit voice recorder as the terrorists recited the Takbir as they flew the plane into a field in Pennsylvania mean nothing.
All an elaborate plan to goad us into attacking peaceful Islamic country's like Iraq and Afghanistan...don't you see...it's the JEWS AGAIN!!!!!!....they are behind it all....EVERYTHING!!!!!
Some of this stuff makes me want to throw up.
I wish the person who junked me would answer some of these points. Like what did the airlines do with the planes they would have to remove from their inventories since they really weren't destroyed flying into the buildings? What happened to all the passengers on those planes who were never heard from again? What about the crews? Since they weren't on the planes, the ingenious conspirators must have kidnapped and killed them all, or imprisoned them in a place where they were never heard from again. What did my friend who lived in a loft in Tribeca and saw one of the planes hit the WTC really see? Did some nefarious agent get to him and force him to lie to someone he'd known for 30 years? Where did they fire the missiles from if they were really missiles? If they pulled all this off they were the most brilliant and most evil people who ever walked the earth.
Brilliant they are not...in fact quite the opposite. Given the Anglo-American elite wealth and influence I think they executed this particular false flag operation incredibly poorly.
I see this as the point when people began to wake up and that is a disaster for the ruling elite. They made a very bad call. They should have continued with the incremental economic empire but now they have to see it through now to the end for fear of being purged.
Wow, you've convinced me with your point by point refutation of the arguments in my post! I am now convinced that there is an "Anglo-American wealth elite" controlling everything in the world! At least I can take comfort in your assurances that they are screwing it up.
I don't think they can. A proper conspiracy theory would start with questions about the authorities version of events. The authorities version of events cooresponds with the reality of the event.
This stupidity started with the shock and wonderment of how a structure (World Trade Center buildings) that are composed of a steel skeleton, when some of that steel is SEVERED by airliners crashing into and through them and then the remaining steel is >>>HEATED<<< the structure could somehow not stand the stress of the weight above it.
Imagine that.
The evidence that the Hamburg Cell of AQ did it is overwhelming. There is no way to get around the FACT that they, and they alone, were in the cockpits of those planes that hit the towers. The cockpit voice recorder transcript of Flight 93 is at once chilling, inspiring and showed the way of any future response by passengers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html
I'm trying to keep from cussing here......
There is also no way to get around the fact that airliners will never be taken over by ragheads wielding box cutters or small arms again with everyone knowing what we know now. They would be beaten into an unrecognizable lump of flesh by the passengers, scooped up with spatulas and flushed into the planes septic.
The record of post 911 hijackings speaks volumes to this FACT.
I don't know what you have there but they never found the red boxes (so they told us).
Also NIST has been debunked every time they issued a report and as of now I think they have flat given up.
Also, the Commision was a whitewash and if you can't figure it out talk to the commisioners, they have said, "It was a whitewash".
You need a new avatar.
What did they do with the planes? Man they blow shit up for fun! What happened to the passeingers....good question (and my heart goes to them). He saw a plane that was not the one that the said passengers and crew was on. The missle that hit the PENTAgon was fired off of the eastern seaboard from the Atlantic.
Brilliant? No. Nefarious? Yes.
And I did not junk you before, nor have I now. I know how hard the truth is to swallow. We have a nice cup of red pills when you are ready.
I'm sick of people like you telling everyone who doesn't agree with them to swallow the red pills. The best you can do is refer to a science fiction movie? Based on the logic you use in your posts on here, you probably actually believe that you are living an the matrix. You think like a child, to wit "Man they blow shit up for fun!" What kind of a response is that to a perfectly reasonable question? You are not worth conversing with, you're an imbecile.
Let me be clear now. DO you know why you are upset? Do you know why you resort to name calling? Because in your heart you know that those buildings did not collapse based on the story your government told you. And this upsets you. It upsets you that you are living a lie. And now you try and take it out on me.
But here lies the problem. I am not your father and you will not take your frustration out on me. You will know what the truth is when I am done with you, whether you like it or not. So you want to make it personal? You want to go there. Fine.
First I care not what you think of me, for I know myself well. You want to test my ability, then have at it Hoss. Next time you see me on the street, holler. I'm your huckleberry. Please next time we discuss the markets, please tell me something new, I beg you! Question my ability at face value, instead you throw fart boms and hide from the side.
I sound like a child? You call me names and question my manhood! These are childish antics. And then you dismiss me afterwards, afraid I will walk away, like a schoolgirl dumping her boyriend because rumer had it he would do the same.
Do you know why I added Mr to my avatar? No because I have never discussed this with anyone; while reading ZH all last year I dedieded there were better ways at "fighting" than to call names etc. This isn't about us; it's bigger than that. You, sir, bring us down a notch. You sir, have no marbles. You know......marbles!
I mean look at this post! You did not even adress 9/11. I will meet you anywhere, anytime on ZH just to discuss 9/11. Find me, I'll be around.
PS, as far as the only adressment you gave, my remark about blowing shit up, well, the US has been at war for 70 odd years, so I would say my remark is justified.
I took umbrage at your argument that because I do not necessarily agree with your assessment I am ipso facto some kind of deluded stooge. I think my reaction was reasonable under the circumstances. I have no quarrel with you, only with your characterization of my mental abilities.
Richard - IMO, you are pretty messed up if you consider yourself a thinking person and you believe the official 9/11 [consiracy] story.
Take a look at this. See if it rings any bells.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
Cell phones do not work that high up. And the people calling were identified as NOT who they were said to be by the parents of the victims themselves.
The red boxes were never "found" (or at least never turned in) so if you have news, please tell the FBI, they have NO leads.
The plane that flew into the field? What plane that flew into the field? There was no plane that flew into a field? Go look at the pictures and find me any piece of a plane!
AND I DID NOT SAY JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not put words in my mouth.
You have been told vicious lies; do not believe them.
Sorry RichardENixon,
Either you have no idea of the modus operandi of the US government history or you are intentionally misdirecting people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Spook?
I am aware of the unsavory activities of the U.S. Government to which you refer. To conclude that therefore it must have directed 9-11 is ridiculous. In addition, it is unsavory of you to accuse anyone with an opposing viewpoint of being a plant or "spook" as you say.
Where did i conclude anything?
I merely provided some documented information that disagrees with your notion that the US government would not kill it's own citizens in order to manufacture consent of the governed.
naive or spook it is.
You obviously have not done your homework since you ask me for the answers; I will assume you are sincere. Who flew the planes? Well not Air Force pilots, because they say they could not have done the aerial maneuvers that were done (reference to the PENTAgon, from the movie "Zero"). You have not been told people did indeed notice that the security was being tampered with the weekend before? And the weekend before that. And the weekend before that. They had those buildings rigged and ready to go for weeks if not months if not years before hand. The actors who called during which event? The calls from cell phones from the airplanes? Well that is easy, CIA no doubt. And if you still believe that cell phone calls were made from the planes you need to think about what you are saying and tell me when anyone has ever called someone from an airplane.
I do not know which maniacs "pulled it off", but I have guesses. And guess what? They do not matter. It does not matter what I (we) think, it matters what we know. A simple demolition, you made me laugh: "This just in, Osama Bin Laden has destroyed the WTC by a controlled demolition. More news on this later." Yeah right buddy. That wouldn't fly. Was "ze government" behind this? Well, they sure stood the fuck down.
This gets interesting. To some extent the US is a police state, but to an equal or even greater extent the populace has its own governor (the engine speed limiter type) that usually obviates the need for the authorities to exercise the powers they have granted themselves. Now maybe the existence of the self-limiting governor is a result of effective socialization, but I am not that conspiratorial. I believe if people achieve a certain level of comfort and continuity, over time they will limit the range of their own behavior lest they move away from that comfort. Social inertia is a powerful force.
Most major countries are equally effective in creating/providing the circumstances that lead to social inertia (despite Cheeky Bastard's claims to the contrary in the Romania article). The US does it well, the UK almost as well, Japan better than anyone. Some countries take a route that provides the appearance of popular control, but in reality all that happens is that the society has a relief valve. (The best at this is South Korea, where the people are allowed to, and do, protest everything with equal vigor. The masses will gather just as quickly to stand against the government gunning down student protestors---Gwangju '80---as they will if the amount of garlic in the kimchi in the company mess is changed; they'll all don headbands, chant, and scuffle with riot-gear-wearing police).
Even ethnic groups have ways of achieving the same effect, as do corporations.
Authority types take two approaches---honey and vinegar---sometimes a bit of both. Japan is mostly honey; Burma almost all vinegar. Iraq used to be. Comfort or fear. Comfort is either a relative easy life or else lack of disorienting change. Comfort also comes in the form of allowing people to belong to something such as "exceptional" America, "the uniqueness" of being Japanese, or the "pride" of being Thai, Polish, Armenian, Druid, etc. Odd that we humans get so attached to accidents of birth; I suppose it has to do with the biological imperative to propagate the gene pool.
China was a combination of fear and powerful socialization, but as modern communication made the control of information increasingly difficult, the CP took advantage of the almost genetic love of wealth to find other ways for the CP to maintain its control. Promise someone the opportunity to obtain a shiny watch or the chance to gamble on RE appreciation, and they'll ignore Tiananmen. Just be careful of the monster created, as dashed expectations might set a billion three people against the boss, Confucianism be damned.
Once social order is established, what next comes into play is the corrupting influence of power. Those who rule can never get enough, so they'll continuously work to get more and more, testing the limits of the system and the pliability of the masses. From this we get the Patriot Act, or even nine-figure Wall Street bonuses, bailouts, and expertly written financial un-reform. So long as the degradation of personal freedom is incremental, all societies or groups willingly move toward greater centralized authority. Again, this is achieved either through fear or the tendency toward social inertia.
Push too far or too fast and the system breaks. Maybe the US is near that breaking point, or maybe social inertia and the desire for comfort is so great that it will never happen. Western Europe is the same as the US, despite the occasional pointless and ultimately completely ineffective display of pique carried out by "students" in Paris or Hamburg or Athens. Western European types might take to the streets in ways Americans no longer do, but all that is "accomplished" is that the masses destroy some of their own environment or possessions, and have to clean up the mess they made. Americans would rather watch TV than make a mess they'd have to clean up themselves. In most of the West it's only the faux-anarchists who like to destroy the occasional Starbucks or McDonalds, though these anti-everything types travel by air and communicate via the internet or cellphones to protest "globalization" or whatever today's flavor happens to be.
In the modern world, only Eastern Europe has any history of popular uprisings that led to real change, though I don't know where it came from (some might argue the Philippines or Ukraine and their non-violent revolutions belong here as well, but all either of these ever achieved was replacing one corrupt administration for another. And all Russia did was change the name of its security service from Okhrana to Cheka to KGB to FSB...new boss, same as the old boss). I have great admiration for what most Eastern Europeans were willing to risk, and for what they accomplished during the fall of communism. If someone was part of that, please educate us as to how that came about and from where the courage came to carry it out. The US could use a can or two of that right now.
It seems over history, American society has managed to muddle through terrible circumstances and come out the other side relatively intact. The face and tone of government may go through profound alterations but the nature and endeavours of the populace as a whole, do not change.
Yes, I am defending the American people. Jeez, they are people! What do you expect! I think chndit13 nailed it. Mess with their comfort zone or try to fundamentally change the way they go through their everday lives and I have no doubt America would completely wig out. The present course our government is following appears to be affecting the comfort zone. I am waiting...and...and wait for it....buying...GOLD BITCHEZ!!!!
Perspicacious and coherent essay; but you confuse your essay's primary matter--Authority--with Authority's instrument--Force: Authority is the ratio of governing the citizenry, which ratio includes Force as one of many instruments. To discern between Authority and Force, consider this: opulent entity could use money as Force to either bribe an elected official or menace him with paid mercenaries, that is "honey and vinegar" as used by you or also "carrot and stick" or better "good cop bad cop"; but same entity could also just advertise its great opulence in order to without any Force acquire citizens' respect or attention, since people everywhere without being forced respect opulent persons. To those incredulous, prove to me people do not immediately pay more attention at a party to a new guest just known to be worth $50MM than to another guest just known to be unemployed; then prove to me women don't immediately see the multi-millionaire as attractive and the unemployed as a loser.
only "women"? puleeeze.
good one, Cathartes Aura
no shit dude†
he just needs to not be a loser, care less about money.
You are not all a beautiful and unique snowflake no matter how manu times you junk me :P
Enjoyed reading this whole thread.
ditto
Indeed.
Posted by Glenn Greenwald
FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2010 09:08 AM ET
How many Americans are targeted for assassination? Obama's top Terrorism adviser suggests that number could be in the "dozens"
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinati...
Best regards,
Econolicious
There's a lot of talk in the thread below regarding Islam, Muslims and Islamic states as being the real threats. Name one time this country has ever been threatened by an Islamic nation and I'll name ten ways on how you were fooled.
Name one way. Well.let's see. First there was the barbary coast in the 18th century in which our merchant ships were taken hostage for ransom, and then there was...
But it's not so much islamic countries that are the threat (there is no distinction between the state and islam in sharia law, they are the same thing) as it is that personal liberty, freedom of choice and speech, etc., are extinguished when sharia law comes to pass.
In that regards, the Oklahoma City bombing was in the name of Judeo-Christian America.
Yeah, right. And roosters crowing cause the sun to come up. Where are my ten reasons I am wrong? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2G7dPFk Nothing in the new testemant commands christians to wage war against non cristians until they convert or submit to the tax. ONLY islam teaches that. Besides if you look into it, you will find that McVeigh converted to islam and was assisted in the us by muslims. Okalahoma was a jihad attack. The US has covered this up. Look into it. Its very interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Q3L6x9Pj Finally here is a video that pretty much sums up my attitude on the whole subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQLH4pWAT4
Uh... no, I'm afraid it's not so. The posting is sensationalist -- and wrong on the facts.
I took the trouble to read the Court's decision. It circumscribes in fine detail what is and what is not allowed.
In particular, there IS judicial recourse to a "terrorist" designation by the Secretary of State. (I hope Blankfein some day takes advantage of it.)
And no, associating with a terrorist organization is NOT in itself breaking the law. Providing material support is. (Feel free to say "hi" to Ben, you are not risking jail.
Yet.)
Yes, I read it also.
So many opinions, so little investigation.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf
"The authority to designate an entity a “foreign terrorist organization” rests with the Secretary of State, and is subject to judicial review."
___
There were parts that I did find alarming, but this discussion has gotten out of hand.
A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the
http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-pl...
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/?FuseAction=home.Cybersecurity
Joe Lieberman on the Cyber Security Bill Sunday June 20
"Right now, China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have that here, too."
_____________
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1006/20/sotu.01.html
China the worst slavest dictatorship in the world is now the leading light for American policy...
He just came out a said that, bang!
Right Lieberman, you're on the list when this fcker goes down.
i would like to see our pledge of allegiance changed to -
"i pledge allegiance, to the constitution, of the united states of america." in the same way that the church was happier with an illiterate populace and begrudged the gutenberg bible, the state is happier with an uninformed public pledging symbolic instead of informed allegiance, the better to manipulate and control.
the supreme court is evil. the american public is largely deranged and can't think straight anymore. i grew up under reagan and always knew everyone was out of their minds. then the seeds were sown. now new york city is an expensive city with helicopters flying overhead, soldiers guarding grand central, and wall street about to jump off a cliff (again), the gulf is full of oil and poisonous gases, everybody is mad at the "socialist" in the white house who actually is just teamed up with all the corporations to rob and pillage more. at the heart of all the problems is the false mindset set a long time ago. the lack of principals. everyone just wants to play mafia wars, but in real life. thats our society
The whole security/police state WAS MEANT TO BE INTERNALISED, it was meant to keep the Americans in rather than the evil-doers out. There just wasn't the threat of any actual invasion to warrant such measures, and the reality is such security states have never been great with dealing with terrorism anyway. The reaction to the problem of terrorism was always strange, until you realise that the barbed wire was always pointing inwards.
The nature of the US and where it has headed is such that one event, real, natural, manufactured or otherwise will be such that a total lockdown of the US is not only a genuine probability but one that would be met with least resistance. In other words the system is ready, they just need the green light.
It's interesting how we may all debate on whether we live under a nation of democracy, leftist socialist or an extreme right fascist regime but the truth is that we actually live under all the above and that the choice is ours to make.
Do you think corporations are run as democracy's? On the contrary.
If you chose not to participate in a corporate environment, then you have basically traded your security for freedom.
+10 ozzi
i've always found it interesting that the first thing most folks do when they're free from a rule-maker, is choose a new one. e.g. "freedom of religion".
as a libertarian-ish participant in the corporate machine, i'd never seen the ironic parallels.
i guess freedom to choose your oppressor is a freedom of sorts. gives the illusion of control.
how funny.
The power of the Govt Unions (Fed/State/local/teachers) with the power to grant lush salaries /benefits/pensions/healthcare creates a separate class of citizens who support more Govt control. This however will only work as long as Treasury can issue $200 billion/week of new debt and roll over existing debt w/o increasing interest cost. This will end maybe next week, maybe next year. But it will end. How can a Country survive when it is divided within? The Govt will then redirect our attention with a new enemy.
Freaking Chinese are awesome!
A lively and Thunderbird's reminiscent recreation of sex crazed Al Gore sexual assault.
http://indyposted.com/29342/al-gore-message-therapist-encounter-recreate...
Its a self propagating catch 22, the more "crisis" that occur (think 9/11) , the more the goverment uses the crisis as an excuse to take away freedom.
The patriot act was a huge freedom eroder.
The pseudo global warming scare created another excuse for politicians to "Gore" themselves on freedom erosion laws like cap trade.
The finacial crisis socilaized debt for the oligarchy, and made the public resposible for the rich elites gambling problems.
It goes on and on
This post is such garbage. However, I will say, it is hilarious garbage.
Moreover, talking about hoisting your own pitard: the very fact that you can write this piece without fear of arrest, is the very fact that shows the fatuousness of the post's argument.
Also, "[t]he U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not." Now this is such a transparently stupid, just fucking STUPID, sentence. Who else should determine what is a terrorist organization? Please, tell me. The UN? Oh, I imagine you would have no issue with that, right? Oh no! Oh wait, maybe the bilderburgs? Or the global trimuverate!
You are a jackass, sir. A jackass.
Your very revealing argument presupposes the preeminence of the state over the individual. See?
Wow! Incisive! Actually, no. Rather obtuse.
Get to the point: who should determine what is a terrorist organization?
resip - it should, at a minimum, be decided by "unambiguous" law which would be based on both "defined threat" and "defined target-of-threat". or at least a sincere attempt at such a law. all contexts will never be completely handled - enter the courts.
i find validity in the article because the government's urge to protect itself as an organism has repeatedly resulted in scary interpret-ability of what constitutes things like threats, danger, enemy, etc. i hardly think if 99% of the people wanted to unanimously dissolve the US government today, that *it* would concede to that will... let alone 51% us.
as a life-long "follower-of-the-rules", i do NOT feel safe at this level of (general) police discretion, and the trend seems to be favoring that discretion *more*, rather than less. i can easily see it turning on me, or others like me, with little or no recourse. witness katrina gun confiscation. and it is preventable, should we choose to acknowledge the threat. not happening.
if the current administration thought they could get away with it, fox-news (clearly anti-government, right?...) and zero-hedge (clearly anti-confidence / anti-trust , which is what the current admin needs to save the world) would be gone, as both entities are clearly working against the interests/plans of the 'state'. they are, by any definition, dangerous to the cause. forget the danger of the cause itself. the cause has the power...
the fact that truth and honest information have no place in the *current* mechanisms being applied as 'fixes' to this current mess shows me that the problem lies in the *fixes* themselves, not the critics of the fixes. now, should the fixes fail, are not the critics the cause? and isn't the damage intentionally caused? by who? terrorists? anyone who chooses not to support the 'cause'? saboteurs, you might say?
i truly believe we have enough freedom to write this stuff *only* because the current administration *can't get away* with shutting it down. not because they don't *want* to, and, arguably, are actively trying to (fairness doctrine, etc.). i've never felt this way in my life before.
has it always been this way?, and only i'm changing in my recent awareness? or is it actively changing out from under us?
see if we can get the guy with the microphone to answer that. honestly.
Someone in Hamas is related to the guy you buy your newspaper from. If you are caught supporting the news stand in your city, your directly supporting Hamas. YOU are a TERRIST.
I think I'm going to soak my bloody, swollen, razor cut hands in a hot vinegar bath.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60261.html
What a bunch of loosers. The people in this town, I mean. They don't even have the balls to put these tax-feeders in the unemployment line.
”UBS bankers had apparently used every trick in the book—including giving customers code names and assisting them with or providing them with untraceable pay phones, encrypted computers, fake trusts, document-shredding and even counter-surveillance training.” Who’s really in charge? Read on and weep:
From The Game That Goes On and On by Russ Baker reprinted today on LewRockwell.com
Last August, the presidential press corps followed Barack Obama and his family to Martha's Vineyard for their brief vacation. The coverage focused on summery fare – a visit to an ice cream parlor, the books the president had brought along. Nearly everyone mentioned his few rounds of golf, including his swing, and the enthusiasm of onlookers. What caught my eye, though, was the makeup of his foursome. The president was joined by an old friend from Chicago; a young aide; and Robert Wolf, Chairman and CEO, UBS Group Americas. …
Wolf, however, is hardly – as the NYTimes suggested – just another donor. For one thing, he is a leading figure in an industry that almost brought down the entire financial system – and then was the recipient of astonishing government largesse. UBS, along with other banks, benefited directly from the backdoor bailout of the insurance giant AIG.
But UBS stands alone in one rather formidable respect – it was the defendant in the largest offshore tax evasion case in U.S. history, accused of helping wealthy Americans hide their income in secret offshore accounts. To settle a massive investigation, UBS forked over $780 million to the US treasury. This settlement came shortly before Wolf rounded out Obama’s golfing party. Given this rather problematical situation, why then would the President choose UBS’s Wolf of all people for this honor?
... [W]hen it comes to real power, an ability to come out ahead no matter which party is in power, it’s hard to top certain financial institutions. ... UBS is very much a part of the permanent government… a major player in the Beltway game. …
The bottom line: UBS hedged its bets, and so had an inside track no matter which party took the White House. Thus, when Obama won, it was Wolf who ascended. The new president named the banker-donor to his White House Economic Advisory Board. …
The Obama-UBS relationship began on a December day in 2006. According to his calendar, the presidential hopeful was visiting New York City to speak at a fundraising dinner for children in poverty. Beforehand, though, he attended a much more exclusive gathering—in the midtown Manhattan conference room of billionaire George Soros—for a dozen wealthy figures eager to have a closer look at the prospect.
One attendee was UBS executive Robert Wolf. Then just 45, he had already been a major fundraiser for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid and for congressional Democrats in 2006. For 2008, he had initially backed a moderate Mark Warner, the former governor of Virginia. But when Warner decided not to run, Wolf turned to Obama, liked what he saw, and signed on… (end excerpts)
Why is our American system being buried in greed and corruption…with a cartel holding every lever of economic power in its hand, but in total the person of the president of the United States? This long piece excerpted here, provides more sordid details of America 2010 than even our worst fears could have imagined. Read on, please.
http://whowhatwhy.com/
yeah i read about this connection with UBS last summer.
when does it stop. i totally stopped admiring anything, Obama.
i was curious about the foursome as well, since i play so much golf.
my kind of golf, sure ain't like these doo doo's golf game.
they suck† it is too bad all these bad presidents played golf.
their reputations are ruined not the game of golf. my 2¢.
It just identifies how far we have come. To bring this guy on in a game of golf, in broad daylight, right after what I call a court case victory, just shows how dumb they really are. You're right, how much more sordid can it get?
You know who else followed Obama on that particular vacation? Cindy Sheehan. Man I love that woman!
I agree. As Cindy says: I don’t think much as changed since the Bush administration."
Her’s is a good reminder for American presidents:
“Casey died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East…”
America desperately needs more “Peace Moms” and Dads!
+10, ate yer junk'd
I like what MsC said on another thread about never letting her son go to war for this nationstate. . . if only more parents put their children first, over their "patriotism". . .
I don't want her grief. I feel her, and her situation would drive me insane. She is trying to go about it in a way that makes sense, but the system itself does not make sense. She may win some hearts and minds (like ours) but she cannot win until the gloves come off and she has more fighters at her side. There will not be more fighters until there is more pain, I am so sorry to say.
VIDEO: The Creature from Jekyll Island – A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G Edward Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8484911570371055528#
excellent link, thank you. i will pass it about.
Anyone know where i could her a Bloomberg Anywhere login?
i wonder if the federal government cut off federal funds to a state to force that state to give up its constitutional rights, could not that state outlaw all direct tax payments to the fed but collect them themselves and hold them?
starve the beast
You've hit on one of my favorite ideas. I think states should stand between its citizens and the feds, and negotiate a tax settlement.
The interesting aspect of this is CA, which pays out much more than it receives. Since CA is in constant fiscal troubles, they are in a pretty good position to turn the tables.
The downside is states like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, who are net beneficiaries, especially in recent times via Katrina.