This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Drone Warfare In America

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Drone Warfare in America

How would Obama supporters feel if they learned that their beloved President was running far-to-the-authoritarian-right of arch-hawk Charles Krauthammer on one particular civil liberties issue?

Sadly, the answer is that the most Obama supporters probably wouldn’t feel very much at all, because support for Obama has always predominantly been emotion-driven (he promised change “you can believe in”, not “change that I can logically convince you will be beneficial“).

But I digress. Charles Krauthammer weighed in on FOX yesterday to telegraph his opposition to bringing drone warfare to the skies of America.

Krauthammer said:

I’m going to go hard left on you here, I’m going ACLU. I don’t want regulations, I don’t want restrictions, I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war. The Founders had a great aversion to any instruments of war, the use of the military inside even the United States. It didn’t like standing armies, it has all kinds of statutes of using the army in the country.

 

I would say that you ban it under all circumstances and I would predict, I’m not encouraging, but I am predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country.

 

The Founders we’re deeply opposed to the militarisation of civil society. There is all kinds of aversions to it and this is importing it because, as you say, it’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s silent. It’s something that you can easily deploy. It’s going to be, I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here, stop it now.

And this is a big deal. A recent report by Micah Zenko noted:

Worried about the militarization of U.S. airspace by unmanned aerial vehicles? As of October, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had reportedly issued 285 active certificates for 85 users, covering 82 drone types. The FAA has refused to say who received the clearances, but it wasestimated over a year ago that 35 percent were held by the Pentagon, 11 percent by NASA, and 5 percent by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). And it’s growing. U.S. Customs and Border Protection already operates eight Predator drones. Under pressure from the congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus – yes, there’s already a drone lobby, with 50 members — two additional Predators were sent to Texas in the fall, though a DHS official noted: “We didn’t ask for them.” Last June, a Predator drone intended to patrol the U.S.-Canada border helped locate three suspected cattle rustlers in North Dakota in what was the first reported use of a drone to arrest U.S. citizens.

But I’m going to go even further than the threat to civil liberties: I am fairly certain that the militarisation of U.S. airspace by drones is itself a huge national security threat. While Zenko notes that drones “tend to crash”, the downing of a U.S. drone over Iran late last year — supposedly via an Iranian hack — seems to suggest that it is possible for drones to be commandeered by hackers or hostile powers. And if that’s not the case today, then it almost certainly will be tomorrow. Putting drones into the air above the United States is like going to sleep on a bed of dynamite. It’s an invitation to anyone to try and commandeer a plane, possibly one stocked with high-tech weaponry.

The Federal government would do well to quit groping Grandma at the TSA checkpoint, and start worrying about the potential negative side-effects of systems they are putting into place. All the TSA security theater in the world cannot stop a determined hacker from commandeering a drone.

Charles Krauthammer is right (and after the Iraq invasion which he championed I never thought I would say that): it could be the bane of our existence. Stop it here. Stop it now.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:16 | 2427099 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

'ObaMao supporters' are just mindless drones themselves.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:18 | 2427107 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Mindless drones are smarter.  Romney sucks, Bush sucks but anything is better than the "gay"  and race baiting president.  Democrats still love him.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:22 | 2427122 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Actually midless drones are smarter than both Obama supporters and the "anything is better including Romney" crowd.   Do you think Romney will bring change you can believe in on this issue or any other that matters? 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:50 | 2427131 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Go long sniper scopes!

Thats hunting I could get into!

Whats next for American citizens - Mandatory Anal Implants?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:52 | 2427312 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

I can't stand that god damned krautenfucker.. Neo-con piece of shit murdering bastard... If all the brown people in the world were killed off it wouldn't  be enough for this asshole.. I'm basing this opinion on previous interviews with him.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:00 | 2427397 redpill
redpill's picture

So it stands to reason that if this fascist actually voices concern over civil liberties, it must really be a dark time!

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:41 | 2427717 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Unfortunately no. There is always a person such as this who seems to be against the establishments  implementation of new forms of slavery and intimidation. There will be heated debate, philosophical deliberations over the morality, constitutionality, and social ramifications of this "necessary and expedient" use of such technology. Legislation will be passed which will protect us from our "protectors" and drones will rule over the skies in America. There is nothing new under the sun.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:58 | 2428127 illyia
illyia's picture

Sucks.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 18:12 | 2428738 slewie-the-pi-rat
slewie-the-pi-rat's picture

lots sucks* 

waterboarding sucks  http://bit.ly/KYXC2f but in most cases you live to talk about it

 

but what sucks even more is being mentally hanidcapped in Fullerton when tasers and boots are involved http://bit.ly/MhkeQs  but in this case the only thing you get to hear and see are his last words "Daddddyy"

One year after Fullerton, California police officers beat a 37-year-old homeless man to death, video footage of Kelly Thomas’ last few minutes of consciousness were showed in a Santa Ana, CA courtroom on Monday.

 

*(viewer discretion is advised the first video is disturbing  but the  second video put  up by RT is  basically a snuff film)

 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:59 | 2428139 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

The only reason Krauthammer is towing the 'good guy' line is because Obama stands to win again against a very wooden and tiki headed Romney. Had this been the W administration, with a fledgling war in Iraq/Afghanistan he'd be calling for domestic drones to protect us against terrorisim.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 18:42 | 2429338 r00t61
r00t61's picture

Yes, Krautie is the "oppo-Krugman" in this case.

When GWB was in office, Krugman opposed deficit spending.  Now that Obama's in office, deficits don't matter.

When GWB was in office, Krauthammer supported pre-emptive invasion into Iraq, and continued to support it, even after it was revealed that there were no WMDs, and all the "Curveball" intel had been fabricated.  Using drones to kill brown people in Iraq and Afghanistan was a just and moral use of US power against the evil terrorists who were out to destroy the American way of life. 

Now that Obama's in office, Krauthammer's all of a sudden concerned about using drones. 

They're both establishment tools and don't deserve any attention.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:29 | 2427984 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Ahh, good old Max. 

Measured and reasonable, as usual.

Thanks for the reminder of what a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance you can be.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:51 | 2428341 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

You're welcom tomato face... anytime

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:55 | 2427336 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

i think the anal implants may already be in place...in baltimore this morn the dj on the classic rock station was talking about the second comings of all second comings, the facebook ipo....asking sheep to call in and advise if he should buy....would this be considered, jumping the shark? or....

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:54 | 2427783 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Do you think I can get them to wait to lunch the drones until I say "pull !"  ?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:34 | 2427207 CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture

Correct, Romney was asked point blank at a debate "Would you sign the NDAA as signed by Obama last week?" his answer? "Yes"

All I needed to hear. Same Shit Different Douche

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:57 | 2427359 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

That's why they call Romney "White Obama".

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:57 | 2427368 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Two-Wives Obama.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:10 | 2427882 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I wasn't aware Romney ever had two wives, even sequentially. OTOH, if you're talking about polygamy in the family history, don't forget Obama's father, grandfather and great grandfather all had multiple wives. And so what anyway, now that Obama has come out in favor of calling homosexual unions the equivalent, in his mind, of heterosexual marriage. Heck, why not allow even group marriages with multiple males and multiple females? Sort of like communes back in the 60s, remember?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 21:58 | 2429957 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Hmm, the Manson Family -- ahead of its time.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:32 | 2427667 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Robomney. 

 

It sounds like something from the Futurama robo-sexual episode.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:39 | 2428034 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

A bit redundant, eh?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:46 | 2428326 Seer
Seer's picture

And speaking of douches, notice that Fruitless Freddie isn't anywhere to be found when the discussion drifts from his one-trick subject of libs/dems/Obama.  I wonder how much money he's stuffing into Romney's coffers...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:45 | 2428621 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

LINK IT!!!!  I want to see hiom say that just as you stated it..

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:42 | 2428600 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Your right, you should lay down and die, then the government can take all your money and redistribute it, moron..

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:28 | 2427175 pepperspray
pepperspray's picture

Nobody came out to see the Preezee last week in Albany NY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsnX6HeUVNg

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:31 | 2427197 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Nobody "came out" you say?  Ironic...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:32 | 2427203 pepperspray
pepperspray's picture

Right on!

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:39 | 2427240 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

I am building my own video fitted drone.

Should be ready for liftoff memorial day weekend.

How long after takeoff until the authorities show up at my door?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:46 | 2427288 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Knock, knock.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:19 | 2427922 Doomer
Doomer's picture

No knocking required - just need a robo-signed search warrant.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:42 | 2428306 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

That Linda Green sure gets around.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:49 | 2427294 CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture

Paneful talking some sense about Krauthammer talking sense? What is going on?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:59 | 2427377 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Topsy turvy world.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:26 | 2427975 ProtectiveFather
ProtectiveFather's picture

It's like a window to the future or something.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:56 | 2427795 Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

They won't show up at your door because you troll FOR the authorities...distract, dilude, divide somewhere else traitor.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:11 | 2427896 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

No knocks, just a drone-launched Hellfire.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:39 | 2428300 Seer
Seer's picture

I think that you're a closet Obama supporter.  You've ALWAYS got him on your mind.  Maybe your encounter with him didn't turn out like you'd hoped?  Maybe he didn't deliver FOR you?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:41 | 2428312 Seer
Seer's picture

Ah, a perfect name for you: Fruitless Freddie

No queer is he

Of substance there is not

Oh, Fruitless Freddie!

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:56 | 2427344 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

I was at an event  a couple of weeks ago and the domestic drone testing that is to be going on in Oregon was mentioned as being a great advantage to the Central Oregon area.  

The room erupted in cheers.

My jaw hit the floor listening to these total idiots cheer their own tyrannical enslavement.

These idiots cannot connect the dots.  The "economic boom" is in reality taxpayer money, stolen by the fed.gov and then funnelled into illegal domestic surveillance projects that will be used to further enslave the taxpayers.

The money could have just stayed here in the first place.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:40 | 2428048 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

That would not be productive use of capital under Marxist economics, comrade.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:51 | 2428344 Seer
Seer's picture

I don't believe that Central Oregon is a hotbed for socialists.

Flag-waving and militarism are the closer domains of fascism.  But, hey, it's fun bashing Marxism!

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:55 | 2428362 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Nothing to worry about. all super powers do plan things like this before collapsing. Remember, Nazi Germany was planing to arm all their soldiers with "Jet Packs".

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:21 | 2427564 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

John Aziz, this is old new in the world of "alternative news" but the fact of the matter is, it DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WAS OBAMAO OR ROMNEY OR BUSH IN OFFICE AT THE TIME OF THIS BILL. ALL THIS REALLY IS, IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF A COLLAPSING EMPIRE and TPTB want to remain in power. We discussed this with the NDAA, CISPA etc etc etc...

All I know is that Ron Paul WOULD NEVER allow drones to "survey" the people... and THAT is why AIPAC and the ass clowns in Hollywood/Congress/GOP will make sure Ron Paul never gets elected!

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:01 | 2427815 Aziz
Aziz's picture

ALL THIS REALLY IS, IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF A COLLAPSING EMPIRE and TPTB want to remain in power.

Yep. 

The news though, I think, is that Charles freaking Krauthammer claims to be opposed to it. Charles Krauthammer is now less authoritarian than BHO, at least on this.

Crazy world.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:25 | 2428249 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

Thanks John. And here... Just in case some imbeciles still supporting Obamao here felt that this was a conspriacy and that "drones" were something from a Terminator movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzrS0BVJynM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

GAME OVER FOLKS

 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:23 | 2427959 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

Yep. I suggest everyone get some good research in about Continuity of Government. Aside from natural disasters, this is mostly about plans to keep governement alive against all odds and at all prices, including against the will of its own so-called "constituents".

It does not matter what puppet is at the head, at least not qualitatively. The show must go on.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:21 | 2427100 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Like the folks in Montgomery County, Texas, where the Sheriff's Office just took receipt of a Fed-Funded drone with weapons capability.

 

"The aircraft has the capability to have a number of different systems on board. Mostly, for law enforcement, we focus on what we call less lethal systems," he said, including Tazers that can send a jolt to a criminal on the ground or a gun that fires bean bags known as a "stun baton."

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-boots-ground-fukushima-japan#comment-1837709

 

Tend to crash?  Indeed...

(Conroe, Montgomery County) – A drone has crashed during a police test flight near Houston, adding to growing safety concerns as more police departments take flight with the unmanned aircraft.

 

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/03/12711/drone-crashes-into-swat-team-tank-during-police-test-near-houston/

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:23 | 2427134 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

"Don't taze me bro...er...drone?"

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:36 | 2427163 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

...the Sheriff's Office just took receipt of a Fed-Funded drone with weapons capability.

At $300,000 each, I love what this says about America's financial priorities. 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:53 | 2427333 insanelysane
insanelysane's picture

Awesome episode where Barney buys a surplus motorcycle with sidecar.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:57 | 2427357 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Looks like the same googles I put on my dog when he rode on the gas tank of my Harley.

Those were the days my (feline) friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KODZtjOIPg

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:25 | 2427154 emersonreturn
emersonreturn's picture

hedgelsshorseman, what's happening in cornrow? it used to be such a sleeply little hollow?  has the local prison decided to take in high rent terrorists? 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:14 | 2427912 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Is "less lethal" anything like "a little pregnant"?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:54 | 2428363 Seer
Seer's picture

So many wedding parties, so few drones...

I wonder whether they'll hold a funeral service for the "fallen officer."

Collateral Damage coming to a location near you...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:17 | 2427108 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword. (Rev 6:4)

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:10 | 2427488 Lord Drek
Lord Drek's picture

If only prophecy were actually being fulfilled by these events! We're only seeing the "beginning of sorrows". 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:37 | 2427535 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

I think you're right.  I have no prophetic insight, of course, but I try to find opportunities to weave the Word in...even the junkers read it before punching the red-arrow.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:52 | 2427775 kinetik
kinetik's picture

Spare us the hilarity of your bible. It had nothing to say when it was cobbled together by psychotic virgins in 400 CE and it has nothing to say now.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:36 | 2428015 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Are you really as stupid as you sound, or did you forget the /sarc/ button?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:55 | 2428093 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

You know that science has debunked your 400 AD myth, right?

BTW, if it has nothing to say, why is it that the unfettered truth about you and everyone else is in it?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:03 | 2428715 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

I dunno man those numberless flying hordes spitting fire on the devestated survivors of the Middle East they talk about in Revelations, they are sounding alot more real than they used to. Half the shit we complain about here was mentioned thousands of years ago in the "book of bad shit" at the end of the Bible.

Drugged up Nation under new lady Babylon.check.

Mark of the beast controlling all trade.Check.

Wars and rumours of wars.check.

Man made pestilence and famine.check.

It has stood the test of time. There were people as smart if not smarter back then who faced the same challenges we all face today. Outlasted alot of shit.Credit where credit is due.

 

Thu, 05/17/2012 - 17:46 | 2434243 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yep, self fulfilling prophecies sure are easier to realize when you have a manual to guide you through the process step by step.

For magical books of antiquity, I prefer Tolkein to Rowlings though:

"Evil oft mars itself."

(Think of Ben Kingsley's character's final scene in "War Inc.")

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 17:02 | 2428716 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

 

 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:00 | 2428140 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

I'm far from any kind of bible thumper (I'm not even Christian), I think the Church, as an institution, is the antichrist and I do not feel any better regarding ideologies or dogmas,  but your stance is so ideologic (whether you're pro-bible or anti-bible, you're still defining yourself in relation to the bible) that it is just as bad.

"He is wise who can learn from every one"
~ Talmudic saying 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:56 | 2428370 Seer
Seer's picture

I'm no "follower," but I think it matters not, when something is a match it's a MATCH.  Seemed pretty pertinent to me. (green arrow from me)

Thu, 05/17/2012 - 01:40 | 2434228 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"I think you're right.  I have no prophetic insight, of course, but I try to find opportunities to weave the Word in...even the junkers read it before punching the red-arrow."

Me too:

1 Samuel 15:2-3; God commanded Saul  “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

And I think you're dead wrong, like so much tripe you spread plenty of prophetic insight around, the 'self-fulfilling' kind.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:17 | 2427111 hangemhigh77
hangemhigh77's picture

Obama supporters are much more focused on important things like who rubs genitalia with who.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:58 | 2428378 Seer
Seer's picture

You brought it up, does that mean that YOU are an Obama supporter?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:17 | 2427113 Debtless
Debtless's picture

I could never listen to Krauthammer drone on about anything. 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:21 | 2427127 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

It's hard to believe a neocon like Krauthammer would oppose drones.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:41 | 2427188 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

AUVSI, GRAPH, Boeing, Lockneed, and Northrop Grumman just haven't cut him a check yet.  This is Charles way of saying "Bitch, give me my money."

Watch for him to change his tune in a few weeks.

*Off topic, but I swear that man looks like Lord Voldemort

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:37 | 2427238 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

A little bit of political theater.  His token opposition will help to entrench the "left" in favor of drones.  he'll change his tune in due time.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:04 | 2428724 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

The left might be going to sell them as a new from of law enforcment that doesn't discriminate. Were all white on an infrared monitor.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:17 | 2427114 evolutionx
evolutionx's picture

Have a look at Bank CDS and the ECB Fear Indicator: 

banks deposited

788B overnight

everything red like blood

http://www.cds-info.com

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:20 | 2427115 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Why does he think he's going "hard left"?  This is about individual sovereignty, which leftists want to confiscate at every turn.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:23 | 2427138 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

This is untrue and nonsense spread by the right.

 

The left are not interested in power - the further left you go - the less power they want over the individual.

 

You're confused - and you're confusing the actions of left Governments to retain power under the attack from Capitalists (i.e. Stalin) from ACTUAL policies of the left - all of which result in ZERO government.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:30 | 2427177 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

I'm not confused at all.  The left is consumed with consolidating power and stripping people of their ability to exercise and dispose of their own labor.  Just read up on Thomas More and Plato and Marx and Alinsky.  Everything the left does is a guise for converting liberty into servitude - taxes, debt, environmentalism, social justice - whatever the "label", it's all about subordinating the individual.  But it is so engrained in the left that they do not see it.

I wonder, are you aware that your moniker is a Bible reference?  Mene, mene, tekel, parsin

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:40 | 2427252 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

thanks for the reading list I went through 15 years ago.

Clearly you cannot have read Marx correctly or you would know the 'goal' is a stateless society - it's basically Anarchy with the class structure involved.

 

How can you preach about the power of the individual when democracy places the power over all into a single man 9or womans) hands?

 

How can you talk of individualism when the free market always moves towards monopoly power and the suppression of the individual?

(all this around you is NO coincidence - Marx should have taught you that)

 

I always laugh at those who demand individualism be the central goal for everyone - whilst engaging in systems which destroy it - and while over-egging the power of the individual.

 

I mean who built the Hoover dam? - was it one man () or the collective effort and sacrifice of many?

 

You can look at the greatest achievements of man and very few are down to individuals - and in most cases - usually invention - when absolute individualism is cited - the truth is often obscured by a re-write of history.

 

See Edison and the patent office - or the ignored supporters who assisted most of the greatest inventors, preventing them from starving whilst they carried out their 'great work'.

 

It's not good to fawn over individuals - that's why you keep electing presidents who FAIL.

Only the US people can get you out of the mess - but America's obsession with indiviudalism means you place all your hopes on 1 man rather than looking at yourselves and your own contribution.

 

Like I say, much to learn.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:53 | 2427326 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

way to distort facts.

Individuals should be free to contract with one another to acheive a common goal without govt. interference.  That isnt collectivism, comrade, its freedom.

Now go back to your anarchist bunker and take a sponge bath

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:03 | 2427407 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

I see this has degenerated as you don't like being shown up for a fool.

You have a problem, when I speak of collectivism I mean a body which is truly representative.

 

You speak of 'Government'.

 

This is why you are like a child crying to be given the same rights as adults but without any of the responsibility.

 

Without the collectivism - how do you propose that contract is worth the paper it's written on?

I mean in your fantasy we can make contracts with each other all day - without any interference - but sadly there will be no 'business' as they are worthless empty promises.

 

Your way will (and has already) resulted in war - my way has the buy in of all and therefore less likely to cause conflict.

 

Still much to learn.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:23 | 2427605 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

On ZH you can tell by the downticks sans reasoned responses just how right you actually are.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:26 | 2428815 Seer
Seer's picture

How wrong, according to popular wisdom... still doesn't mean that the "collective" is right.  Just saying (in defense of logic)...

Wed, 05/16/2012 - 15:43 | 2432662 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I saw what you did there... +1

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 22:08 | 2429992 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

At one time, the majority believed that the sun revolved around the earth.  Check yer premises.

Thu, 05/17/2012 - 00:41 | 2432723 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Where did Writingsonthewall say anything about astronomy? Anyway, the fact that the majority (I assume) doesn't believe that the earth is flat anymore shows that they are open to incorporating new information into their worldview at least some of the time... or are you arguing that because the majority were deliberately misled hundreds of years ago it must follow that they will always get all things wrong? If so: Check your universals.

Meh, I made an entirely valid (IMO) generalisation about the gang of 'Libertarians for the Further Deregulation of the Banks!' echochambermaidens that have infested ZH with their pig ignorance; there are exceptions, natch, that prove the rule. Are you one of them, or no?

Speaking of 'premises', you would do much better if you dealt with the things WOTW actually wrote, rather than inadvertently supporting my post.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:31 | 2427651 Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

Speak for  your self sonny. When I make a deal I shake hands and this Dude abides. Laws are built on foundations of sand true society is built on the bedrock of culture.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:15 | 2428764 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

The man has a point.

The withering of the state was the long awaited end result of Communism. Never happened any more than the neo-liberal fantasy that corporations would replace the role of the state beyond law enforcment. Marxism went from being a scientific theory of sociology and economics to a Totalitarian ideology. Shit happens.

Always been curious though. When he was talking about Capital was he really talking about the banks. And when he was talking about the banks was he really talking about the Rothschildes? His talk about the expansion of Capital and the chaos it causes sounds remarkably like Paul's talk about the expansion of debt.

Not to say i'm a fan of Marx but i wouldn't totally write him off as "collectivist" he was for the withering of government not what he got with the Soviets and the so called Communists. I'm wondering if that wouldn't be what the economy would look like if you democratized the banks and spread around their ability to create "Capital" out of nothing.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 22:11 | 2430000 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

The political spectrum is at least two-dimensional

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:07 | 2428416 Seer
Seer's picture

"Now go back to your anarchist bunker and take a sponge bath"

So, you LIKE centralized power?  You are only advocating against Govt being able to hold this position.

For those who don't understand anarchism (and are programmed with that provided by TPTB):

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001689.html

[excerpt:]

One thing ideologues of all stripes share is a negative view of human nature -- they see us all as basically bad, and in need of improvement (achieved by a period of indoctrination, naturally, which they offer). Further, ideologues hold themselves exempt from this principal of negative human nature -- that is, they are okay, but the rest of the world is screwed.

However, this view is incompatible with anarchism, and entirely appropriate to authoritarian ideologies -- authoritarians all view people as basically bad, and in need of education, supervision, and above all, control, which they are all too willing to provide.

The anarchist, conversely, holds that human beings are basically good and not in need of guidance, coercion, and control -- indeed, we hold steadfastly to the idea that the only evils in society come about when some seek to control and coerce others, and that the mechanisms of power, privilege, and control turn even the saintliest stalwart into a connniving manipulator.

In other words, anarchists view people as good, and systems of control as bad, whereas ideologues hold the other view -- that people are bad, and systems of control are good (so long as THEY control those systems -- if someone else controls them, then they're bad -- that's how they seem anti-authoritarian when out of power -- but just wait until they do get a measure of power, and you'll see). It's an important difference, and determines the nature of the organization that arises from these foundations.

Thu, 05/17/2012 - 17:52 | 2434179 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"One thing ideologues of all stripes share is a negative view of human nature -- they see us all as basically bad, and in need of improvement (achieved by a period of indoctrination, naturally, which they offer). Further, ideologues hold themselves exempt from this principal of negative human nature -- that is, they are okay, but the rest of the world is screwed."

Sorry Kropotkin, that was interesting, but hardly true. Ideologues such as yourself see humanity as 100% inherently good; as it's the only way that they can make the case that  'anarcho capitalism', or it's equally unicorn based parallel 'Marx's Endgame', could result in a reasonably functioning society.

Unfortunately for stubborn utopians and absolutists of all stripes, reality constantly demonstrates that we are very rarely born all good or all bad, and that either tendency isn't necessarily a direct result of being taxed (or not) within the womb. But the 'all baddies', especially the cleverer ones, ruin it for the rest of us, and so need to be coerced to behave. Shit, the 'all goodies' can be a bit unbearable at times too, but it's usually pretty safe to let them run with it... 

Stick that in your pipedream and smoke it.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:03 | 2427434 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Are you still in college or are you just completely hopeless?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 22:18 | 2430023 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

College?  more like Kindergarten:

[quote]

The Six Problems With Modern Progressive/Socialism

1) You really didn't learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten:  Progressive/Socialists love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner's view of the world.  If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it.  If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they're against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets.  Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.

2) "Progressive/Socialists hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for Progressive/Socialists and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter:  Somewhat ironically, given the hostile relationship that has developed between the Left and Christianity, Progressive/Socialist beliefs have more in common with religious doctrine than a political agenda.  There is no significant debate on the Left about the aims of their agenda -- and the only "sins" believers can commit against their religion are no longer being politically useful, deviating from doctrine, or worst of all, cooperating with conservatives in some fashion.  No matter how much evidence piles up that big government doesn't work, that welfare destroys families, and that socialism doesn't bring prosperity, it makes no impact on Progressive/Socialists because their dogma is based on faith, not logic.

3) "It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it." -- Denis Diderot:  There is no dream more eternal in the Progressive/Socialist heart than completely remaking human nature.  If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia!  Unfortunately, in practice, human nature tends to be quite a bit more difficult to subvert than in the Progressive/Socialist imagination.  That's why, despite more than 5,000 years of human civilization, very little progress has been made in this area - but, oh, the Left is still trying.  One day, if they just spend enough money on the right government programs, all the wars will end and everyone will be living in identical million dollar mansions while we spend our days humming tunes from the latest Woodstock Tribute Album.

4) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive." -- Sir Walter Scott:  Like freaky religious cults, Progressive/Socialists have become adept at hiding their more abhorrent views from the public until it's too late.  It's common to see Progressive/Socialists adamantly deny that they hold a position over and over again only to completely switch sides the moment they have one more vote than they need to pass legislation.  Whether it's lying about their opponents or what they believe, honesty is certainly not considered to be the best policy on the Left.

5) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." -- Matthew 7:3-5: Despite the fact that Progressive/Socialists love few things better than to cry "hypocrisy," there is a rather bizarre disconnect between what modern Progressive/Socialists seem to believe about themselves and how they behave.  Progressive/Socialists believe that they're compassionate, but only with other people's money.  They tie themselves in knots trying to come up with valid reasons why terrorists hate the United States, but they never give a moment's thought to whether the people who dislike them might have a point.  They pat themselves on the back for helping minorities, but never stop to consider that Progressive/Socialist policies have done more damage to black Americans in the last fifty years than the KKK could have done in a millennium.  Somehow, stunning hypocrisies of this sort, which are too numerous to recount without doing a whole other column, never seem to be bother anyone on the Left.

6) "Trust yourself.  You know more than you think you do." -- Benjamin Spock:  It's great to have a healthy self-image, but there's not much to be said for thinking you're smarter than the collective wisdom and traditions passed down through human history just because you happen to read the Daily Kos.  Unbecoming arrogance of this sort permeates modern Progressive/Socialistism.  The most grave of decisions are undertaken by the modern Left without the slightest regard for the potential consequences.  Past disasters created by similar bouts of whimsical thinking, of which there are many, are treated as acts of God untethered from mere human decision making and prompt no self reflection whatsoever.  That's because to the modern Progressive/Socialist, the real world results of their policies are secondary in importance to the amount of positive self-esteem generated by supporting that policy.

[/quote]

Thu, 05/17/2012 - 02:06 | 2434264 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

good gawd, tell me you're being paid to regurgitate all this hooey. You don't actually believe that convoluted rat's nest of utter twaddle, do you? The Bold doesn't help much either; I suggest you hit the capslock and italics for the lot to give it some real ooomph.

[/oog]

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:44 | 2427732 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

individuals who are free to associate or not associate with who they choose... They can choose to work together voluntarily, or they can freely decide NOT to work together....The point is, it is THEIR choice, not some collective....Should they band together for a paycheck to accomplish something, it is still an INDIVIDUAL choice...

Thu, 05/17/2012 - 18:11 | 2437574 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I bEt you puT up QUITE a fuSS the fiRst TIMEyour parents asked you to take OUT the garbage.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:30 | 2427192 forexskin
forexskin's picture

huh?

/sarc, right?

left=redistribution of wealth=empowered government doing the taking from individuals = statism...

there is a left-right axis (bread and circus), i get that, but that's separate from the statist-anarchist (power vs. freedom) axis

or... /sarc...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:32 | 2427202 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

+10 bull's eye

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:48 | 2427289 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

left=redistribution of wealth=empowered government doing the taking from individuals = statism

 

...and yet not once do you question history and how that wealth was gained by the indiviudals it's redistributed from.

 

By that argument then you shouldn't complain about JPM cornering the short silver market (or any other market) with their great wealth as you MUST assume that all wealth came to be in the hands that it's in through fair, legal and legitimate means - and now they are just exercising their right.

 

The problem you have with property is YOU are choosing the moment in history from when property rights should start - which is conveniently in your favour.

 

Otherwise I suggest you all fuck off as you're trespassing on Indian land!

 

Can you explain why your property ownership is legitimate but the natives of your country is not?

...or are you just practicing hypocriscy?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:56 | 2427349 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

Indians?

they stole land from each other at spear point, so fuck their claims to land or property

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:07 | 2427448 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

..the same could be said of Americans today - shooting each other for property.

 

So fuck your claims for land and property.

 

Your forefathers took from the indians - now the Government is going to take from you.

unlucky

 

Funny how one is acceptable but the other is outrageous - could you be any more self interested?

 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:21 | 2427572 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

congratulations Professor  for pointing out that mankind is defective, hypocritical and greedy.

Now back to your inconsequential, bitter, conspiracy driven life

 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:48 | 2427731 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Congratulations, Professor, on apeing all the things that support Writingsonthewall's suppositions. Now back to your pipedreams that deny the existence of all of them...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:13 | 2427895 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

hmmmm, I guess the English should give back England to the Vikings, who took it from the Saxons who took it from the Celts, who took it from someone else who took it from someone else....

 

Mexicans claim that we took California, AZ, NM and parts of Texas from them, who took it from the Indians, who took it from other Indians...

 

So how far back do you go? Who's claim is most valid?

Cuba was taken from the Indians by the Spanish, and it was taken from the Spanish by the marxists who you support...So should Fidel hand over Cuba to some Indian tribe??

 

Your logic, is illogical

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:20 | 2428471 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

What logics? Even in your post, you failed to go down through.

It means that theft can be indubiously proven or an assumption.

Indo-Europeans stole Europe from Europeans but from whom Europeans did steal the land? You have no idea. Mere assumptions.

Lets apply US citizenism then: benefit of the doubt. Why should US citizens look somewhere else but at US citizenism, the best thing to have been given to the world?

It is clear that US citizens stole the land from the Indians. As the collevistic Indians did not exist before discovery of the new world, it is also not possible to apply circular logics like Indians stole it from themselves.

As shown here, the topic is clear and the answer clear: you go down to doubt. When there is doubt, you apply benefit of doubt, as supposed by US citizenism.

Which gives US returns to Indians, Europe returns to Europeans. In each situation, Indo Europeans who stole the land, go where they belong to: Asia.

Anything against that?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:34 | 2428833 Seer
Seer's picture

All will eventually revert to those best able to live sustainably.

I didn't read the thread here, so excuse me if I state something out of place.  But... my argument on these things always is centered on the premise that unless you own up to your crimes against others you don't have a leg to stand on when crimes are committed against you.  I'm not lobbying for reparations necessarily, as that's up to the "collective" (I use "collective" to denote that it is NOT up to any "individual," nor any particular "group") to decide, but am lobbying for an acknowledgement that this is bad practice, a parctice that always creates poor foundations (the fallout never goes away; this should be quite clear since it's STILL being debated today!).

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:18 | 2427530 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

yes, they stole the land from each other,  were constantly at war, enslaved each other; all those things the evil white man was supposed to have invented.   Most of the land was bought from them.   Of course their leaders often took advantage or made bad deals on their behalf...

To answer your question about property rights- I guess 1776 or 1783 or 1787 would be a good time to start if you need a date specific.  take your pick. 

Actually we should go back to 1620.  That is when the pilgrims tried their collectivist experiment.   It failed dismally as does all collectivism.  Fortunately, they were smart and moved to a free market system with private land ownership.   At that point the colony started to thrive.  

One more failed demonstration of collectivism.   What will it take for folks like you to finally get it?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:41 | 2427693 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Norway to go into debt? Shit, I'd settle for a deficit.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:22 | 2428482 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Indians stealing from each other? But the collectivist vision of indians was unknown to them.

The collectivist Indians grew on them faster as they went into contact with US citizens.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:31 | 2428530 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

yes, they stole the land from each other, were constantly at war, enslaved each other; all those things the evil white man was supposed to have invented.

__________________________________

US citizens are not constantly at war? Oh yes, I forgot, they do not label their wars as wars. That is the trick.

White people, Indians were in touch with Indo Europeans mostly. Germans, celtic, slavic etc...

Europeans are white people too.

But the best point is that nowhere people claim that white man invented theft etc.

What is true is that US citizens claimed to have discovered that slavery was bad, that theft was bad... because they opposed human condition through the natural rights theory.

Therefore US citizens had to commit to a mission to bring that revelation to people like the Indians who were ignorant than by robbing others, they were hurting themselves and their human conditions.

That is the story brought by US citizens. Useless to masquerade it as something else, especially the wild claim that theft was invented by white people.

A few centuries, one could see how committed and convinced by their own mantra US citizens have been: they are risen from the ranks as the best extorters of the weak, the best farmer of the poor ever.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:40 | 2428854 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Your living on another planet man there was a Papal bull put out reading all Christendom could steal all of everyones shit everywhere all the time. no one was that ambitious. No doubt the Indians like everyone else had wars and crime. White man never invented sin but he took it to the next fucking level. Having done all that they could have easily stopped but pushed on in way no one has ever before.....Look at Libya, it goes on today.

As for the pilgrims who ever said they were collectivists? They were a tiny minority trying to settle on a new colony. You got to be being sarcastic. Are you seriously going to show up on a new fucking continent with very little help from home and set a free market state and establish civil liberties. They didn't fail because they were collectivist and become Free Market. They colonies started to thrive because they grew and adapted to the enviroment and had something to trade with the outside world. They were groups of families. Its the natural evolution of a community. Lets not forget the fact they were religious fundementalists trying to build a pure non-materialistic socitey through Christian values away from the influence of the English.

Was Buhhda a collectivist for creating an Ideology that urged its followers to limit material consumption?

Your twisting history to fit a political debate. Its standard doctrinaire shit taking a key moment from the past and reinterpreting it for your own benifits. Your doing it "better" than a Marxist would. Is this how far Libertarians are willing to sell out to fly their flag and fight the good fight? Your giving freedom loving people a bad name defending what happened to the Indians and attacking the pilgrims.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 17:06 | 2428993 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

The blessings of a govt education.

the first year the pilgrims were in America they tried collectivism/communism.   

It failed....     of course...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/254025/20111122/thanksgiving-capitalism-communism-pilgrims-america.htm

Wed, 05/16/2012 - 13:36 | 2432170 Watauga
Watauga's picture

I pity you your ignorance and blinders.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:43 | 2428864 Seer
Seer's picture

"all those things the evil white man was supposed to have invented.   Most of the land was bought from them."

Most?  Have a reference? (there's Manhattan and????)

Please note that the natives didn't really recognize property "ownership."  It's hard to say if in those cases where there was an actual mutually agreed to, non-coercive, transaction that they even knew what this meant.

And to the victors go the spoils...

 

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 18:03 | 2429177 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The Pilgrims never thrived.  Winthrop's Puritans, who left about 10 years later, numbered as least 20,000 thrived.

Americans don't know shit about history.  This may be by design.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:22 | 2428803 Maghreb
Maghreb's picture

Who says people like Morgan, Gates, Jobs, Rockerfella, Rothschildes, Carnegies. etc aren't all products of the government. I'm sure they all had their men in congress. Gates repurposed the computer something developed by the U.S millitary to fight wars amongst nations. Jobs Apple inc is being propped up right now by god knows whats going on in the stock market. All their shit is being made in a Communist country.

I'd be very surprised if all these people could exist without redistribution of income. Another thing no one is talking about here because your all western and argue individualism/collectivism, is interest. Fractional reserve renders it all completely pointless. Muslims, Chinese, Indians even the old Europeans HATE money lenders. If banks can create mney on the merit of being a bank then why the hell shouldn't governments have the right to steal money when they please?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:12 | 2428436 Seer
Seer's picture

Could you clarify?  Are you meaning:

statist = power

anarchist = freedom

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:35 | 2427223 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Sure they might want to be left alone, but nearly every last one of them still want to delegate the ability for some to steal property from others, for others without regard to the violence implicit in the action.

Simply put, either you're a peaceful anarchist, or you're a supporter of the violent state. As Rothbard stated time and again, without the Welfare State, there is no Warfare State (and vice-versa).

Either one is coherent, or they aren't. There is no middle ground.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:18 | 2428454 Seer
Seer's picture

Very good :-)

"peaceful anarchist"  I'd state that the use of "peaceful" is redundant.  Yes, TPTB/MSM like to paint anarchists as brick-throwers, but that's Their portrayal which serves the divide-and-conquer directive.  And, yes, people tend to paint themselves a certain way just to get attention.

Once again I offer this article for those who would like to be a little less ignorant (manipulated by TPTB/MSM)

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp001689.html

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:35 | 2427224 Joe Davola
Joe Davola's picture

I tend to be sort of pragmatic and label stuff based on the outcome, not what the circus barkers cry out.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:52 | 2427314 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

On the issues that truly matter, the left and the right as represented in US politics have become one and the same.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:22 | 2427597 Umh
Umh's picture

The only day leftist governments have ZERO government is the day they topple over.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:26 | 2427160 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This just goes to show how fucked up the debate is in this country.  The Republican party routinely bashes the ACLU as being hard left because it supports personal freedom in ways unpopular with the Red Team.  Most Red Team "individual sovereignty" types just want freedom to make their own rules for everyone else.  

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:30 | 2427186 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Why do you think the ACLU supports personal freedom?  Better dig under those covers a bit more...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:38 | 2427231 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Show me how I'm wrong, ideologue.  From their website.  Perhaps you can explain how these cases are designed to undermine individual liberty.

The ACLU of New Mexico (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Christian street preachers who were arrested multiple times for exercising their First Amendment rights by preaching in public. http://aclu-nm.org/aclu-sues-roswell-for-violating-christian-preachers%E2%80%99-right-to-free-speech/2012/04/#.T4wzkIVURLM.email

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2012) filed a brief in support of an observant Jewish prisoner’s right to receive kosher meals. http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/moussazadeh-v-tdcj-amicus-brief

The ACLU of Texas (2011) opposed a public high school’s policy prohibiting students from wearing visible rosaries and crosses in the Brownsville Independent School District. http://www.aclutx.org/2011/11/18/aclu-of-texas-demands-brownsville-isd-disclose-policies-banning-rosaries-and-crosses-at-school/

The ACLU of Nebraska (2011) opposed a policy at Fremont Public School that would prevent students from wearing Catholic rosaries to school.
http://www.aclunebraska.org/index.php/religious-liberty/127-that-gang-of-nuns-looks-pretty-dangerous

The ACLU of Virginia (2011) defended the free religious expression of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County High School who had copies of the Ten Commandments removed from their personal lockers.
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/feb/25/aclu-virginia-defends-floyd-co-high-school-christi-ar-867856/

The ACLU and the ACLU of Southern California (2011) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Sikh inmate who has faced multiple disciplinary sanctions for refusing to trim his beard on religious grounds. Keeping unshorn hair is one of the central tenets of the Sikh faith.
http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights-religion-belief/aclu-files-lawsuit-behalf-california-inmate-subjected-baseless-reli

The ACLU of Connecticut (2011) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Naval officer who sought recognition as a conscientious objector because of his Christian convictions against war. After a period of intense religious study, reflection, and prayer, he had come to realize that his religious beliefs were in conflict with his military service. The officer's request was subsequently granted and he received an honorable discharge.
http://www.acluct.org/legal/religiousliberty/navalofficerwinscodischarg.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=ACLU&st=cse

The ACLU of Southern California (2011) filed a lawsuit against the FBI alleging that an agent had infiltrated a California mosque and violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of Muslims by targeting them for surveillance because of their religion.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/103067
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206975.html

The ACLU of Colorado (2010) supported the rights of students in Colorado Springs School District 11 to wear crosses, rosaries, and other religious symbols. A middle school had announced a policy forbidding students from wearing certain Christian symbols unless they were worn underneath their clothing.
http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-supports-students-right-of-religious-freedom

The ACLU and the ACLU of Kentucky (2010) appealed the denial of a zoning permit for a Muslim prayer space in Mayfield. After ACLU involvement, the permit was granted.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/muslim-prayer-space-granted-permit-kentucky

The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties (2010) wrote a letter in support of a church in El Centro, California, that was prohibited from relocating to a building in the downtown district.
http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=001086

The ACLU (2010) sued the Pierce County Jail in Tacoma, Washington, for religious discrimination against two Muslims who were forbidden from participating in group prayer, denied dietary accommodations, and refused religious clothing.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2010/09/22/two-men-sue-pierce-county-claiming-jail-discriminates-against-muslims/

The ACLU and the ACLU of Georgia (2010) sued the City of Douglasville on behalf of a devout Muslim woman who was restrained, arrested, and jailed for several hours after refusing to remove her religious head covering.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief-womens-rights/aclu-files-lawsuit-behalf-muslim-woman-forced-remove-head-covering-geo

The ACLU of Florida (2010) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a local homeless ministry, the First Vagabonds Church of God, challenging an Orlando ordinance that prohibits service of food to groups in the same public park more than twice per year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit eventually enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance, allowing the church to resume providing food to the homeless.
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3668
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-homeless-feeding-ruling-20100831,0,6714611.story

The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2010) filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Texas state prisoner seeking damages after prison officials denied him the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services.
http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights-religion-belief/christian-prisoner-entitled-seek-monetary-damages-violation-his-rel

The ACLU of Alaska (2010) advised the Alaska Department of Education to respect the religious freedom of Russian Old Believer families by arranging alternate testing dates for the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam, which conflicts with Holy Week for Russian Old Believer students. Students may now take the test on different testing dates.
http://www.akclu.org/NewsEvents/High-School-Qualifying-Exam-Testing-10-02-17.pdf

The ACLU and the ACLU of Maryland (2010) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of Steven Kanai, a conscientious objector who self-identified as a Christian but also found meaning in the non-violent and compassionate teachings of Buddhism.
http://www.blhny.com/docs/Kanai%20AmicusBrief%20for%20ACLU%20ACLU%20MD.pdf

The ACLU of Maryland (2010) came to the defense of a practicing Muslim woman who was denied a foster care license simply because she does not allow pork products in her home. The woman was fully qualified and made clear that she allows foster children to worship as they please.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief/pork-or-parents

The ACLU, its national chapter in Puerto Rico, and its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (2010) filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing restrictive laws that effectively ban Jehovah's Witnesses from freely expressing their faith on the streets of Puerto Rico. The brief supports a challenge by the Witnesses to Puerto Rico statutes authorizing local neighborhoods to deny citizens access to public residential streets.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-brief-affirms-right-jehovahs-witnesses-carry-out-public-ministry

The ACLU of Arizona (2010) successfully challenged a Maricopa County policy restricting religious head coverings worn by detainees and inmates in county custody. The ACLU of Arizona brought the case on behalf of a Muslim woman who was denied the right to wear a head scarf while detained by the Maricopa County Sherriff's Office. MCSO now allows Muslim women to wear head scarves during the intake and booking process after a brief initial search.
http://www.acluaz.org/press_releases/2_4_10.html

The Maine Civil Liberties Union (2009) filed suit against the City of Portland on behalf of the Portland Masjid and Islamic Center, a group of Muslims seeking to use a former television repair shop they had purchased for prayer services and religious study. In response, Portland amended its land-use ordinance, and the Portland Planning Board granted approval to the project. The new mosque will primarily serve as a religious and cultural center for Muslim families who came to this country from Afghanistan fleeing religious persecution following invasion of their country by the Soviet Union.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/content/mosque-maine

The ACLU of Maryland (2009) successfully settled a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless in the town of Elkton, Maryland, which had purchased a site for a religious day center to help the local community through job training, food, showers, and religious services. Though the site is legally zoned for the use of churches and centers that provide those services, the zoning board had refused to recognize the religious nature of the center, placing unreasonable limitations on the ministry. The ACLU of Maryland reached a favorable settlement with the town, affirming the church's right to operate its day center for the homeless.
http://aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/themeetinggroundsettlement.html
http://www.aclu-md.org/legal/Legal.html#Anchor-RELIGION-48213

The ACLU and the ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) filed suit on behalf of a young Quaker whose religious beliefs prevent him from registering for the draft without some official way to record his claim of conscientious objection in the registration process. He is a birthright Quaker and does not believe that he can offer himself as a candidate for the military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902625.html

The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2009) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner – an ordained Pentecostal minister – to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates. The minister had preached at weekly Christian worship services at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey for more than a decade when prison officials suddenly banned that activity without any justification. As a result of the ACLU lawsuit, state officials agreed to allow the minister to resume preaching and teaching Bible study classes under the supervision of prison staff.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/ordained-pentecostal-minister-can-preach-prison-after-aclu-lawsuit

The ACLU of Florida (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two families from the Dove World Outreach Center, defending their constitutional right to express themselves in public school with t-shirts stating, “Islam is of the devil.” The suit claims that the school has been inconsistent in enforcing restrictions on free speech.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091124/ARTICLES/911241001/1118?Title=ACLU-files-suit-over-Devil-shirts&tc=autorefresh

The ACLU of Michigan (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Ferndale after local residents cited a zoning ordinance to prevent the church from providing social services to the poor and homeless on church property. The ACLU argued that zoning boards may not burden the free exercise of religion simply because neighbors object. The Oakland County Circuit Court denied the request of the residents, allowing the church to continue providing services.
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2009/09/25/news/srv0000006478506.txt

The ACLU of Tennessee (2009) came to the defense of a group of student teachers who conduct church services with the homeless in a public park. The ACLU successfully negotiated with the Metro Board of Parks and Recreation to revise a policy that had unfairly blocked religious groups' regular use of park space.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tn-successfully-advocates-behalf-student-preachers

The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia (2009) argued against the censorship of religious materials being sent to detainees in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. The ACLU wrote a letter to the superintendent of the jail, asking that the jail stop removing Christian-themed materials and biblical passages from letters written to detainees. As a result of ACLU involvement, the prison agreed to change its policies and allow religious mail.
http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/40258prs20090709.html

The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued for the right of Christian preachers to distribute pamphlets at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival. The ACLU wrote a letter to the mayor in support of the preachers, who had been ordered to stop handing out religious material.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=thetowntalk&sParam=30796437.story

The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner on death row at Angola State Prison. The lawsuit challenged a prison policy mandating that all televisions on death row be tuned to predominately Baptist programming on Sunday mornings. Under the terms of a settlement in the case, Mr. Leger was able to view Catholic Mass regularly and was permitted private confessional visits with a priest. http://www.laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=342#n342

The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU urged the court to reverse a decision that had prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also had sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In June 2009, the Texas Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of the pastor.
http://aclutx.org/article.php?aid=726

The ACLU of Maryland (2009) filed discrimination charges with the E.E.O.C. on behalf of three Orthodox medics who were told that they could not ride on calls with the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company (PVFC) unless they shaved their religiously required beards. The PVFC claimed that the beards might prevent the medics from wearing specialized safety masks that the PVFC hopes to purchase in the future.
http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/111009_PVFD.html

The ACLU of Georgia (2009) drafted a policy that was adopted by the Georgia Judicial Council, the policy-making body for Georgia courts, which clarified that religious head coverings can be worn in Georgia courthouses. The ACLU of Georgia advocated for the adoption of this policy after learning about troubling reports of incidents at the Douglasville Municipal Court, where Muslim women were faced with the choice of removing their headscarves or being barred from the courtroom.
http://www.acluga.org/news/2009/07/the-aclu-of-georgia-applauds-adoption-by-the-georgia-judicial-council-of-policy-allowing-for-religious-head-coverings-in-courthouses/

The ACLU of Delaware (2009) represented the Episcopal Diocese of Delaware in a threatened eviction action against a congregation that was meeting in an elementary school on Sunday mornings. Because the school district permitted a wide variety of other groups to use its facilities, the ACLU wrote to the school district explaining that, as a general rule, public buildings must be made available to religious groups on the same terms that they are made available to the general public. In January 2009, the parties reached an amicable resolution permitting the church to continue using the facilities.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Shenkel United Church of Christ, objecting to North Coventry Township's refusal to allow the church to house homeless people for one month out of the year. The case is similar to several earlier actions brought by the ACLU on behalf of churches in the Pennsylvania towns of Brookville and Munhall.
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acludefendschurchprevented.htm
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/courtshowdownavertedastown.htm

The ACLU of Arizona (2009) filed a case on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her hijab during booking and overnight detention at the Maricopa County intake jail.

The ACLU of Kentucky (2009) represented several members of the Swartzentruber Amish, an Old Order Amish sect, in an attempt to overturn their criminal convictions for failing to display slow-moving vehicle emblems on their horse-drawn buggies. The Swartzentruber Amish object to displaying the emblems because they perceive them as worldly symbols that are to be avoided.

The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The district court agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia's policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2009.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200903/07-7163-1168865.pdf

The ACLU of Arizona (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Maricopa County Sheriff's Office detention officer who was demoted and eventually forced to leave for failing to abandon his practice of wearing a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith.
http://www.acluaz.org/press_releases/5_29_09.html

The ACLU of Michigan (2008) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a Benton Harbor minister who was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for writing an article both criticizing the judge and predicting what God might do to the judge who presided over his case – actions protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and religious expression.
http://aclumich.org/issues/free-speech/2009-07/1383

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:42 | 2427267 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

It's obviously irrefutable if it is "from their website." 

What's next?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:48 | 2427292 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Which case listed is not accurate or true?  Which case does not involve the support of individual freedom?  Care to have any facts at all to support your position or is being an ideologue enough for you.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:02 | 2427399 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

Pseudo left vs. right politics (Gulag vs. concentration camp) have become another divide-and-conquer tool used by the ruling elite to thwart popular (populist) discontent with the imperial and plutocratic status quo.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:25 | 2427611 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

whatever, dude.   There are statists who want to rule this country and their are constitutionalists who will have to fight them one way or another to preserve their rights.  To deny is to pick sides with the statists.

Your constitutional rights will be gone if you don't fight for them.   It is no "hegelian dialectic" bs.  

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:50 | 2428086 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Constitutionalists are statists.

What? I just made an enemy of half of ZH? Well, okay, they're not as bad as Joe Stalin and his Merry Band of Bolsheviks, but what exactly has the Constitution done for you or I lately?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:58 | 2428131 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

The Constitution has been neutered by the statists.  Y'know, that "living Consitution" notion.  Don't blame the document or its authors.  The current state of the U.S. is exactly what the framers hoped to deny with the Constitution (it was not successful).

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:21 | 2428235 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

The constitution is the closest thing to legislating anarchy that you can find. Understanding that it is hard to protect an anarchy as anyone can go around making rules and try to impose them on people (especially in an uncivilized demographic as mankind has been so far in history), this document tries to settle on rules that are both necessary and sufficient to define a government that will protect the rights of its constituents, including from itself.

Please do try to substantiate your claims. Acknowledging government as a necessary evil under the current situation is a far cry from intending to utimately revoke all sovereignty from "constituents" (property would be a better word) and place it under the grip of the "collective" (even if that is controlled by very few, ergo, One World Corp., Ltd.)...

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:35 | 2428553 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Legislating anarchy is indeed the closest thing to anarchy.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:35 | 2428557 Seer
Seer's picture

"legislating anarchy"

That's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

People need to disassociate anarchism from being some sort of "collective."  Well... if I and several people decide together, in a non-coercive way [with no consequences to anyone not involved in said decision], then I guess this is a "collective" decision, is it not?

All this leaning on particular words, words that can be twisted in various ways is highly problematic.

I think only being statist or non-statist should be the point of debate.  And note that as soon as you provide an "enforcement" arm you are authorizing the application of force- is this a statist function or not?  Can you be a non-statist and support such force?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:29 | 2428515 Seer
Seer's picture

You know, you're RIGHT!  As painful as many (who would knee-jerk) would come to believe.

Ask the natives, the freighted-in black slaves, the women, the non-land-owning whites.

You have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or was that hopiness?).  Nothing more needed to have been stated!  But... a bunch of power elites (white men) decided to divvy up the plunders and instill a system that sounded good, that would sell while they got firmly entrenched (just as has been the case the globe-over).  NOTE: I'm not picking on "white men" in particular; if it would have been "black women" I'd be pointing it out as a fact just as readily; the point is that there was a CLEAR delineation (and that delineation benefited [rightly or wrongly] this group more than others).

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:32 | 2428547 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Actually, more was stated as the FF stated to handpick those specific rights among others.

You have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness among others.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:37 | 2428579 Seer
Seer's picture

It's all highly problematic that we should find the need for anyone or anything to "grant" us "rights." I further wince at the notion that they're "God-given," as this invokes authority, which, as we see all too often, is used to commit injustices (not to mention that we'd have the nerve to state what "God" desires).

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:40 | 2427712 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You've really got to wake up to a "political spectrum" of more than one dimension, mayhem_korner.

I'm full-on "left" in most social issues and hardcore "right" on most fiscal issues, but the really important element is that I'm 100% completely anti-authority.

The authoritarians on what many would call "the right" are just as bad as the ones on what you apparently call "the left."

The ACLU are specifically focused on "civil liberties," and they're primarily interested in keeping government power separated from social issues.  They're "pro-government" in the sense that they believe in the Constitution.

Suckers.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:10 | 2427803 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Dupes. Useful idiots. Rubes. Pillocks. Berks.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:55 | 2427313 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

The ACLU are picky on which parts of the Bill of Rights, a bill of inalienable natural rights, they choose to protect, but that said they end up doing good sometimes in protecting some categories of rights, when they aren't, for example acting as atheist activisits.  

They also seem to not give a rat's ass about the natura, inalienable right to bear arms, i.e. to protect one's most important property.   When you are disallowed from protecting your property, the whole Lockean/Montesqieu derived miracle implodes.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:59 | 2427370 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

The ACLU doesn't recognize unalienable natural rights, which is why they support "Reproductive Freedom" to the detriment of 43 million and counting.  The ACLU views the state as the source of "rights" and, as you correctly point out, is accordingly selective in what it "defends."  The ruse is that they try to appear as if they are protecting individual freedoms, when in fact they are cementing the source of those freedoms in the hands of the state and its judiciary.   That's the forest that mr. letthemeatrand doesn't see.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:02 | 2427396 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Like I said.  You are all about imposing your own set of rules, aren't you.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:08 | 2427465 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Step away from the mirror if you want to converse.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:15 | 2427507 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

When you refer to natural law, do you have a tablet or something from God?  Or are we now in the realm of interpreting your view of religious or moral doctrine as determined by ... you?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:20 | 2427565 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

I go with the Framers' interpretation.  Pretty clear in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers.

Your ACLU has succeeded in re-defining them, however.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:23 | 2427954 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

"The Framers" didn't say anything about abortion.  They gave less than a single fuck about unborn babies.

When the radical religious zealotry really got underway in the USA (early 19th century), many of the Founders saw religious enthusiasm as a severe threat to the "republicanism" they'd tried to foster here.

So in response to your claim--uh...no, not even possibly.

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 13:59 | 2428105 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Really?  What is the meaning of the right to "life" (it's before "...liberty and the pursuit of happiness").  What is abortion other than the denial of the right to life?

Tue, 05/15/2012 - 14:07 | 2428187 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm so glad that we can turn to mayhem_korner -- who believes we should live by his rules and his interpretations of things -- to resolve the debate about competing rights and definitions that have confounded legal and moral scholars for hundreds of years.  For example, we can now resolve definitively that the right to future life of an unborn and unviable fetus is always superior to the right of the woman's life and the pursuit of happiness.  We also can now resolve the problem that the founders are against capital punishment of a citizen, which is the taking of life in contravention to their founding principles he cites.    We can also be sure that the founding fathers believed that life begins at conception and not upon viability.  Thank you mayhem_korner for resolving all of these difficult issues for us and telling us all how to live our lives according to your beliefs.   Long Live King Mayhem_Korner!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!