Then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson devised what has proven to be a brilliant strategy in which to silence and neuter America’s churches. His bill, which created the 501c3 tax-exempt corporation status for churches back in 1954, has, over the decades, effectively muted America’s pulpits. The vast majority of churches today are thoroughly and completely intimidated by the threat of losing their tax-exempt status under the 501c3 section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). As a result, the vast majority of pastors are unwilling to address virtually any issue from the pulpit that could be deemed as political.
Add to the fear of losing tax-exempt status the egregiously slavish interpretation of Romans 13–that Christians and churches must submit to civil government no matter what–and a very legitimate argument can be made that Mr. Johnson not only silenced and neutered America’s churches, but that he has, in effect, turned them into agents of the state. More and more, the federal government is using pastors and churches to promote its big-government agenda.
Most readers are familiar with how FEMA created a program called “Clergy Response Teams” several years ago. Under this program, tens of thousands of pastors were instructed on how to assist the federal government in the event of a “national emergency.” Pastors were encouraged to teach Bible lessons from Romans 13 in which church members were told that God instructs them to always submit to civil authority unconditionally. They were taught to encourage their congregants to turn in their firearms and to be willing to relocate to government-provided shelters if that is what the government told them to do. The last report I read noted that these Clergy Response Teams have been established in over 1,300 counties in the United States. For those readers who are even casually acquainted with history, is this straight out of the Nazi handbook, or what? Now we learn that churches are being used to help the federal government promote and sell Obamacare.
According to TheBlaze.com, “Community organizers are joining pastors across the country to educate and help parishioners sign up for Obamacare. The coordinated initiative, called ‘Health Care from the Pulpit,’ is being implemented by Enroll America, a non-profit with the goal of maximizing ‘the number of uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made available by the Affordable Care Act.’
“The program has already reached a number of churches across the nation. In Jacksonville, Fla, Pastor John Newman is among those who invited community organizers from the group to his church to talk about the cost of Obamacare and the enrollment process.
“During the event, Enroll America invited congregants to fill out cards with basic information about themselves or people they knew who might be in need of health care, WJXT-TV [Jacksonville, Florida] reports.
“‘Our pastor, he keeps us real informed and grounded in what’s going on in the community, and he’s always bringing stuff to help us, so I love him for that,’ said one parishioner named Michelle Fletcher.
“Enroll America knows that pastors are trusted members of the community, which is why churches are a focus for education and information on the health care law.
“Through ‘Health Care from the Pulpit,’ the organization is working with faith leaders to ensure that people hear about availability–and with a captive audience in the pews, the move makes logistical sense.
“‘Pastors are trusted messengers. They’ll be able to get the story across, they’ll be able to relate to that story and they’ll be able to ask people to enroll in health insurance,’ Enroll America organizer Anthony Penna told WJXT.
“From Oct. 25-27, the organization launched its pulpit program as part of the Get Covered America campaign. Enroll America pledged to help churches who wish to enroll congregants or provide people in the community with information and resources.
“A press release from Oct. 22 on the Get Covered America website further explains the purpose of the in-church events.
“‘The “Treat Yourself to Coverage Weekend” will also engage dozens of faith groups for the first nationwide push of “Health Care in the Pulpit,” GetCovered America’s faith engagement program,’ it reads. “Working with a diverse group of faith and lay leaders, Get Covered America will host over 50 events across the country to further engage the faith community in education about enrollment in the marketplace.”
“Other initiatives are bringing churches into the Obamacare fold as well. Dr. Michael Minor, pastor of Oak Hill Missionary Baptist Church in Hernando, Miss., was recently given a federal grant to help enroll individuals in the health care program.
“Through the $317,742 fund, Minor will work with Cover Mississippi, a cohort of advocacy groups organized by the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program. He has already put together a group of 75 to 100 ‘navigators’ (trainers) around the state to provide information and access to Obamacare. While his efforts are unaffiliated with Enroll America, they serve as another example of a church getting involved in the health care roll-out.”
Think about it: before a bill becomes law, pastors are forbidden to address it from the pulpit, because it would be “interfering in politics–a violation of the separation of church and state;” but after a bill becomes law it is now the obligation and duty of pastors to support (and promote) it, because it is now the Biblical thing to do, per Romans 13. Was Johnson a diabolical genius, or what?
By the way, I strongly urge readers to purchase the book on Romans 13 that was co-authored by me and my constitutional attorney son, entitled, “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission.” This book shatters the misinterpretation of Romans 13: that Christians are commanded by God to submit to the state no matter what. The Apostle Paul was not introducing a new topic in Romans 13–not at all. The subject is covered throughout the scriptures. This book needs to be read by every pastor and Christian in the country. Order Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission here:
Or order my 4-message video series on “The True Meaning of Romans 13″(on one DVD)
In the same manner that the Nazi government co-opted the churches of Germany, the federal government in Washington, D.C., is co-opting the churches of America today. During the rise of the Third Reich, Germany’s pastors and churches were taught the same misinterpretation of Romans 13 that pastors and churches in America are now being taught. And in the same way that Hitler used Germany’s pastors and churches to promote his big-government socialist agenda, America’s pastors and churches today are being used to promote the big-government socialist agenda emanating from Washington, D.C. Mr. Bush used the churches to promote the FEMA Clergy Response Teams, and now Mr. Obama is using the churches to promote the federal government’s socialized health care system.
I remind readers that during the Hitler years, the vast majority of German pastors and churches enthusiastically embraced the Nazi agenda even to the point of flying Nazi flags and giving the Nazi salute during the worship services in Germany’s churches. But who among us remembers the names of any of these pathetic pastors? Yet, we do remember (as does history itself) the names of plucky pastors such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller who led the spiritual opposition to Hitler’s encroachment into the church.
Instead of the federal government’s draconian “Clergy Response Teams,” we need to resurrect Bonhoeffer’s band of heroes, which was known as the “Pastors’ Emergency League.” This was a group of German pastors dedicated to resisting the Nazi agenda–especially inside the church. The creed of Bonhoeffer’s Pastors’ Emergency League was:
1. To renew their allegiance to the Scriptures.
2. To resist those who attack the Scriptures.
3. To give material and financial aid to those who suffered through repressive laws or violence.
4. To repudiate the Nazi cause.
Bonhoeffer’s Pastors’ Emergency League soon became a nationwide movement called, the “Confessing Church.” In his masterful book, “Hitler’s Cross,” Erwin Lutzer summarizes the creed of the Confessing Church as being, “No human sovereign should rule over the church; it must be under the Word of God to fulfill its role.” (Page134)
Lutzer also noted that the Confessing Church soon realized that “blind obedience, even in matters that belong to the state, might be a violation of the Christian mandate.” (Ibid)
Lutzer further wrote, “Many of our Christian heroes were lawbreakers. Whether it was John Bunyan, who sat in a Bedford jail for his preaching, Richard Wurmbrand, who was beaten for teaching the Bible in Communist Romania, Christians have always insisted that there is a law higher than that of the state.” (Ibid)
And, again, to quote Lutzer: “[I]f we say that we will always obey the state, the state becomes our God.” (Ibid)
The brave Bonhoeffer rightly said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” He also said, “We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the
The names of the cowardly and compliant pastors who succumbed to Hitler’s ignominious intimidation are forever lost, while the names of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller will live forever.
In fact, are not the vast majority of highly revered Hebrew and Christian heroes the ones who RESISTED the power of the state when it became tyrannical? From Abram who resisted the “kings of the nations;” to Gideon; to Samson; to Queen Esther; to the prophet Micaiah; to Daniel; to Shadrach Meshach, and Abednego; to Simon Peter, who told civil leaders, “We ought to obey God rather than men;” to William Tyndale; to John Hus; to John Wycliffe; to John Bunyan; to Savonarola; to Martin Luther; to Dietrich Bonhoeffer; and to Jonas Clark, the names history regards most fondly are the names of men who RESISTED the power of the state when it attempted to interfere with man’s duty and devotion to God.
However, what do we see today? We see pastors and churches once again becoming the pawns of evil men in government. Pastors are not so much messengers of God and watchmen on the wall as much as they are agents of the state. They are not so much shepherds who fight and give their lives for the sheep as much as they are facilitators of the wolves who seek to prey on the sheep. And in modern history, the seed of this compromise and complacency began in 1954 when Lyndon Johnson introduced the devilish 501c3 tax-exempt corporation status for churches.
I am absolutely convinced–now more than ever–that America will never experience any sort of spiritual awakening until pastors and Christians abandon the 501c3 government churches and repudiate the devilish doctrine of unlimited obedience to Caesar. Until we return the Church to its rightful owner, Jesus Christ, the tentacles of oppression and tyranny will continue to strangle our land and our liberties.
Torture, or what our government calls “enhanced interrogation”, is not a tactic so much as a darkly artistic process. The subject of this process has something that the torturer wants; it might be information, or a forced confession to a crime the subject did not commit, but most often, torture is designed to gain nothing more than psychological compliance.
The goal is to manipulate the subject into believing that submission is the only possible future, and that such submission is inevitable regardless of the will of the victim. The torturer often builds himself up as a kind of parent figure for the subject – becoming the only entity that can supply shelter, water, food, and comfort. The torturer is taskmaster and abuser, but also caregiver in the twisted relationship dynamic. A schizophrenic balance is struck in which the subject longs for the outside world and a return to the pleasures of the past (making him desperate and malleable), but he also partially accepts his prison walls as home (giving him a false faith that compliance will lead to a safer and more predictable tomorrow).
Until this compliance is achieved, the subject is exposed to endless and erratic crisis events in which his body is damaged, his mind is deprived of sense, perception, and sleep, and his life is overtly threatened. He may receive brief moments of rest, but these are designed only to make the next torture session even more raw and painful. If the subject does not understand how the process works, or if he doesn’t have a strong sense of his own identity, then he will quickly lose track of reality. Every moment becomes a waking nightmare, a warped and gruesome carnival, and life becomes nothing more than an absurd and obscure experiment barely worth living.
It is my belief based on substantial evidence that America, as a nation and a culture, is now being held hostage and tortured into submission on a grand scale using economic terror by the elitist establishment which dominates BOTH major political parties. The goal? To push our society to conform completely with the concepts of globalization, bureaucratic micro-management, and greatly reduced living standards. We are being conditioned to accept defeat and failure, and like children, to cry out for a parental authority to save us in our state of helplessness and fear, even if that authority was the cause of our fear from the very beginning.
The Thin Thread Of The American Economic Fantasy
In the past three months the U.S. has flirted with total fiscal collapse three times. The first event came in August with market rumors that the Federal Reserve was nearing a “consensus” on plans to cut QE stimulus measures, causing panic amongst investors who now realize that the ONLY pillar still holding our fiscal edifice together is endless fiat currency creation by the Fed. Markets began a paradigm which is now the “new normal”; plummeting whenever good economic news hits the mainstream on the fear that the central bank will tighten policy, and skyrocketing when bad economic news hits the mainstream on the assumption that the Fed will continue printing. It is official – lackluster employment reports are something to cheer, and overall systemic crisis is good for stocks:
The possibility of a Fed taper has shown us clearly that any action by the private bank to reduce or remove quantitative easing will result in a market panic and implosion. If the globalists within the Fed apparatus decide one day soon that they want to bring the U.S. to its knees, destroy the dollar, and introduce a new world reserve currency, they can do it with little more than a word proclaiming QE over, or unsuccessful. So far, they keep the life support machine running…
The second event came with the drive by the Obama Administration to turn their covert war in Syria into a full blown invasion. Despite presumptions by many naysayers that Russia and China wouldn’t lift a finger to aid the Assad regime, both nations staunchly opposed action by the U.S. in the region and tensions neared critical mass. Make no mistake, a WWIII level event could have easily erupted, and some Americans seem to remain oblivious to the danger.
China and Russia maintain vast influence in global markets. The EU, for instance, is utterly dependent on Russian natural gas exports for their energy needs. The U.S. economy could be annihilated within weeks by an announcement by China to dump their treasury holdings or the dollar as the world reserve currency. This is just a taste of the financial risks associated with a new war in the Middle East, and military risks add even more potential calamity. Anyone who believes that Chinese or Russian views on American political or military behavior “do not matter” is living in a deluded cartoon-land.
The third event came with the recent debt ceiling debate and government shutdown. One-third of the U.S. population is disturbingly dependent on scraps from the government’s table, and any mention of cuts to entitlement programs (or social security, which government treats exactly like an entitlement program) causes immediate and militant finger pointing. Democrats have been especially vicious in their accusations and rhetoric, consistently referring to Constitutional conservatives and “Tea Party” legislators as “extremists”, “traitors”, and even “domestic enemies”:
I happen to take a slightly different view to a majority of independent analysts in that I believe the establishment is just as likely to push America into deliberate default as it is to push America into infinite debt and inflationary collapse. The end result will be exactly the same regardless of the path taken, and we have yet another opportunity to dance on the edge of oblivion coming in three to four months when the debt debate starts all over again.
The point is, our financial system has become so unbalanced and internally diseased that if ANY event follows through to culmination, whether political, economic, or international, the economy WILL shatter. The past three month are a resounding testament to this fact.
The “De-Americanization’ Of The Global Economy
In my article ‘How The Dollar Will Be Replaced’, published in 2012, I summarized the Catch-22 nature of America’s debt problem which I have been warning about since 2006, and how this will eventually end in the abandonment of the dollar as the world reserve currency. To this day, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that the dollar is doomed, some people still refuse to grasp reality.
In the midst of the latest debt debate China has made clear it’s intentions through state run media to end its relationship with the greenback, not just to form a Chinese-centric reserve currency system, but a global currency system centered on a “new world order”:
Last year China surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest importer and exporter, making its currency, the Yuan, more desirable than the greenback as a reserve in the long term. Since 2010, China has been quietly but quickly establishing multiple bilateral trade agreements with numerous countries dropping the dollar as the primary purchasing mechanism. China has accumulated massive gold stores and is set to become the world’s largest holder of gold in the next two years. In the past year, China has also surpassed the U.S. as the number one importer of oil, making it a more valued market for the Middle East and causing many to question the dollar’s relevance as the petro-currency:
Saudi Arabia, America’s primary ally and foothold in the global oil market, is now openly calling for an end to traditional agreements and a separation from the U.S. because of the lack of military action in Syria. This too does not bode well for the dollar’s petro-status. Like a chess maneuver, it would seem we have been cornered by the globalists on oil. If we invade Syria or Iran we risk losing petro-status. If we do not invade Syria or Iran, we still risk losing petro-status:
In response to the dismal debt ceiling extension and the uncertainty underlying the new debate coming in the next few months, China’s ratings agency, Dagong, has downgraded U.S. treasury bonds yet again:
Three near-crisis events in only three months have signaled a severe acceleration in what the Chinese call the “de-Americanization” of the global economy. All of the financial shifts taking place since the derivatives implosion of 2008, as well as those rushing like white-water rapids through the global system in the wake of the debt ceiling debate, are gravitating towards ONE outcome – the destruction of the dollar, and the introduction of a new global currency (the SDR) controlled the the IMF.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin has called for a global currency run by the IMF to replace the dollar:
China has called for a global currency run by the IMF to replace the dollar:
Elitists within the U.S. have called for a global currency run by the IMF to replace the Dollar:
Hell, even the Vatican has called for a global currency run by a “global public authority” to replace the dollar:
There is a world-wide strategy in motion to end the dollar, and with it, America as we know it today. The only question is, how many more near-disasters will we have to experience before the trigger event takes place?
The Torture Continues
With so many near misses culminating so close together, it may be wise to consider what could happen in the the next three months while we wait for debt debate theater part duex. Like a prisoner in Abu Ghraib, America is trapped, waiting for the next humiliation, the next degradation, or the next session of pain. Are we merely being acclimated to the idea of incessant crisis? Are we learning to become apathetic at the edge of the chasm? Or, are we being driven to madness, mass-madness, by a concert of elitist interrogators seeking our acquiescence?
Again, the central purpose of torture is to acquire consent. Not just extorted consent, but voluntary consent. It is not enough for the torturer to force the subject to obey, he wants the subject to EMBRACE his servitude. To gladly abandon all hope. To see his captor as his only salvation.
The globalist establishment wants us to beg them to save us from the tortures they create. If we never give them this, they will never win.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
He’s responsible for endorsing some of Washington’s most lawless policies. His rap sheet reveals great cause for concern. More on him below.
Post-9/11, police state terror followed. Obama expanded it.
It’s unprecedented in size, scope and ruthlessness.
DHS is America’s Gestapo. The November 25, 2002 Homeland Security Act established it. Twenty-two federal agencies were combined under one authority.
They include Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security, the Secret Service, FEMA, National Protection and Programs Directorate, and the Coast Guard among others.
DHS concentrates unprecedented executive branch military and law enforcement empowerment. It’s a rogue agency. It’s insidious. It’s a police state apparatus writ large. It’s a dagger at the heart of freedom.
Its four main mandates include:
- border and transportation security;
- emergency and disaster preparedness;
- developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons countermeasures; and
- centralizing storage and analysis of potential threat information.
US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established months earlier (April 25, 2002). Doing so was unprecedented.
For the first time, America’s mainland, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Gulf waters, Florida straits, and portions of the Caribbean were militarized. Troops may be deployed on US streets.
Doing so violates core 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act principles.
They prohibit using federal and National Guard forces for domestic law enforcement except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of insurrection or other national emergency.
No longer. Usurped diktat authority lets presidents claim emergency powers, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and deploy federal and/or National Guard troops on US streets to suppress whatever is called disorder.
Fundamental freedoms are endangered. First Amendment ones matter most. Without them all others are at risk. They include free expression, assembly, religion, and right to petition government for redress.
Police state ruthlessness defines today’s America. International, constitutional and US statute laws no longer matter. They lie in history’s dustbin.
Diktat power replaced them. No one any longer is safe. Doing the right thing is dangerous. Guilt by accusation is policy.
Anyone can be arrested, held uncharged, and detained indefinitely. Due process, judicial fairness, and other civil rights no longer protect.
If confirmed, Johnson will replace Janet Napolitano. She reflected the worst of repressive governance. Throughout her tenure, she violated fundamental rule of law principles.
She terrorized Latino immigrants. She waged war on Occupy Wall Street. She obstructed FOIA requests.
She advanced America toward full-blown tyranny. Expect Johnson to pick up where she left off. His record gives pause for concern.
His legal career combined private and government service. From 1989 – 1991, he was GHW Bush’s Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
From 1998 – 2001, he was Clinton’s Air Force Department general counsel. He’s currently a Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner.
His former Defense Department responsibilities included legal review and approval of all military related operations.
An unnamed senior Obama administration official said:
“The president is selecting Johnson because he is one the most highly qualified and respected national security leaders, having served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world.”
“During his tenure at the Department of Defense he was known for his sound judgment and counsel.”
It includes defending military commission prosecutions. They’re for so-called “unprivileged enemy belligerents.” Bush called them “unlawful enemy combatants.”
Francis Boyle called this designation a “quasi-category to create an anti-matter universe of legal nihilism where human beings (including US citizens) can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism.”
Johnson supports all of the above. Doing so qualifies him to head DHS. He endorses targeted assassinations by drones or other means.
He defends lawless NSA spying. He champions waging war on terror at home and abroad.
On November 30, 2012, he addressed the Oxford Union in London. He titled his talk “The Conflict Against Al Qaeda and its Affiliates: How Will It End?”
He claimed credit for working with Congress “to enact the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2009.” It renewed its initial 2006 authorization.
It scrapped habeas protection. It granted sweeping police state powers. They’re unchanged today. MCA states:
“(N)o (civil) court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever…relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures…”
With or without evidence, “Any person is punishable who aids, abets, counsels, commands, procures,” or in any way provides “material support” to alleged terrorists.
Charged suspects are guilty by accusation. Enhanced interrogations (aka torture) are authorized.
So is denying detainees international law protections. Presidents can authorize military commissions at their discretion.
Torture coerced confessions are admissible. Hearsay and secret evidence is permitted. Kangaroo court justice follows.
Johnson vowed to keep fighting Al Qaeda. “(W)e are taking the fight directly to AQAP (Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula),” he said.
He omitted explaining that Washington uses Al Qaeda and similar groups strategically as enemies and allies.
He called targeting Al Qaeda “a new kind of war. It is an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy.”
He implied that old rules don’t apply. Waging war on Al Qaeda won’t “end in conventional terms,” he said.
The most “unconventional” tactics are used. Fundamental rule of law principles are violated doing so.
On February 16, 2012, New York City Bar President Samuel Seymour wrote Johnson, saying:
“(W)e write to express our concern with the Order Governing Written Communications Management for Detainees Involved in Military Commissions, dated December 27, 2011.”
“The Association is alarmed at the dramatic impingement on the attorney-client privilege resulting from the procedures set forth in the Order.”
“The sanctity of the attorney-client privilege is fundamental to our system of justice.”
“If the Order is implemented, (it) will be gravely undermined.”
“We urge the appropriate authority to vacate the Order and (replace it with) a (proper) legal framework.”
It’s in stark contrast to civil proceedings. It’s fundamentally unfair and unjust.
Seymour’s letter was comprehensive. It was lengthy. It ran nine pages.
He concluded saying “the Association believes the Written Communications Order is problematic because it invades the attorney-client privilege, inappropriately inserts outsiders into the defense team, and reverses the presumption that the privilege should be respected, all on a blanket basis and without any particularized showing of need.”
“We believe the Order threatens to undermine the proper functioning of the adversary system and” helps delegitimize military commission prosecutions.
On March 18, 2013, Johnson spoke at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School.” He titled his address “A ‘Drone Court:’ Some Pros and Cons.”
He claimed “appropriate lethal force” made America’s homeland safer. It’s never been less safe.
He advocates drone killings. He asked what about establishing a drone court? He’s comfortable about an authority acting as judge, jury and executioner.
He wants it kept within the executive branch. Targeted assassination authorizations aren’t suited for judicial review. Quick action is needed to implement them.
Doing so violates core international, constitutional and US statute laws. Johnson didn’t explain. Nor that drones mostly kill innocent civilians.
A tiny fraction of deaths are so-called “high value targets.” Innocent men, women and children comprise most others. It doesn’t matter.
Johnson calls “targeted lethal force” justifiable. “The essential mission of the US military is to capture or kill an enemy,” he said.
In a February 2012 Yale Law School address, he called US citizens fair game.
“Belligerents who also happen to be US citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” he said.
“(U)nder well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an ‘assassination.’ ”
America’s domestic “war on terror” will be in good hands with Johnson. Expect freedom to suffer another major body blow. Perhaps it won’t survive his tenure. Ends justifying means alone matters.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Miriam Carey is the latest victim. She deserved to live, not die. More on her below.
Incidents occur daily across America. Blacks and Latinos are most vulnerable. Police shoot innocent suspects for any reason or none all.
Rarely are officers or their superiors held accountable. On average, US police kill one or two people daily. Most often, incidents go unnoticed.
Violence in America is systemic. Previous articles discussed it. America glorifies wars. It does so in the name of peace.
It has by far the highest homicide rate among all developed nations. It’s obsessed with owning guns.
Violent films are some of the most popular. So are similar video games. Peace, stability and security are convenient illusions. Imperial wars and domestic violence crowd them out.
Communities, neighborhoods, schools, work places, commercial areas and city streets are affected. Driving while black is dangerous.
A 1999 ACLU report discussed it. Titled “Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways,” it said:
It’s longstanding practice in America. In 1967, dozens of witnesses told Kerner Commission members that “stopping of Negroes on foot or in cars without obvious basis” was a key reason for riots the previous summer in cities across America.
The Fourth Amendment assures “(t)he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
The Eight Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”
What’s crueler than state-sponsored cold-blooded murder.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits “depriv(ing) (anyone) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The 14th Amendment forbids states from “depriv(ing) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It affirms “equal protection of the laws.”
Police across America spurn constitutional and US statute laws. They do so with impunity. According to ACLU:
“No person of color is safe from (mis)treatment anywhere, regardless of their obedience to the law, their age, the type of car they drive, or their station in life.”
“In short, skin color has become evidence of the propensity to commit crime, and police use this ‘evidence’ against minority drivers on the road all the time.”
“This vicious cycle carries with it profound personal and societal costs.”
“It is both symptomatic and symbolic of larger problems at the intersection of race and the criminal justice system.”
“It results in the persecution of innocent people based on their skin color.”
“It has a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the entire justice system.”
It’s worse than that. Blacks and other people of color risk death at the hands of out-of-control cops. They’re licensed to kill. They murder with impunity.
Overwhelming evidence proves it. In 2010, Injustice Everywhere (IE) published a National Police Misconduct Statistical Report.
It found thousands of instances of police misconduct. Hundreds of civilian deaths followed. When officers are held accountable, most often discipline imposed is mild.
Criminal justice in America is systemically unfair. Victims are cheated. A previous article discussed Trayvon Martin’s murder.
It asked when is killing a non-threatening, unarmed teenager not murder? It’s when Jim Crow justice trumps fundamental civil rights.
It’s when victims are black. It’s when killing them is OK when whites do it.
It’s when institutionalized racism threatens all people of color. It’s when longstanding practice turns a blind eye to killing them.
It’s when cops are licensed to kill. On October 3, Washington, DC police gunned down Miriam Carey. They did so in cold blood. They did it willfully.
Doing so reflects epidemic levels of state-sponsored violence across America. Cops call killing non-threatening civilians “justifiable homicides.”
Unarmed Blacks and Latinos are victimized. Post-9/11, police have increasingly been militarized.
It’s justified on the pretext of waging war on terror. Mariam Carey was a 34-year old Stamford, CT dental hygienist. Previously she lived in Brooklyn.
She was unarmed. Capitol police killed her after a car chase. Reportedly she tried breaching a White House security barrier. Police banged on her car window. They ordered her to stop.
She appeared to back up into a police vehicle. She fled. She did so after cops opened fire. Capitol police and Secret Service officers gave chase.
They fired multiple times at her vehicle. Why on busy DC streets? Why when backup units could have blocked her safely?
Why wasn’t she taken alive, detained and questioned? Why do cops routinely shoot first? Why are they allowed to get away with it?
Things ended violently near the US Capitol. Miriam’s car crashed. She got out. She was clearly unarmed. She was non-threatening.
Cops shot her to death. They riddled her body with bullets. Doing so was cold-blooded murder. Bystanders nearby could have been harmed.
Miriam had her one-year daughter with her when she was killed.
Family members said she suffered from postpartum depression. The Mayo Clinic says many new mothers experience the “baby blues” after childbirth.
Mood swings and crying spells follow. Usually they fade quickly. Sometimes they last longer. The behavioral pattern isn’t a character flaw or weakness.
Change of life at times affects people this way. Some need more time than others to adjust. Given today’s dire economic conditions, doing so is harder than during more normal times.
Mariam’s sisters want answers. Amy Carey-Jones said there should’ve been “another way instead of shooting and killing” her.
Valerie Carey said she “didn’t deserve to have her life cut down” this way.
Her mother, Idella, said she had no history of violence. She threatened no one.
Mariam’s friends, neighbors and associates were shocked.
Next door neighbor Erin Jackson said she doted on her daughter, Erica. She often took her on picnics.
“She was pleasant. She seemed very happy with her daughter, very proud of her.”
Former Brooklyn neighbor, Jeff Newsome, said he was shocked to hear what happened.
“I would have never, never thought that she would do something like this. I can’t believe it.”
Angela Windley was a former high school classmate. She remained a close friend. She was “floored and sad,” she said.
Mariam “was just a very sweet person, very determined and driven in order to get out of the neighborhood and do better for herself,” she added.
“She wasn’t violent or anything like that. I looked up to her a little bit. She was kind of like a big sister.”
According to psychiatrist Ariela Frieder:
“If it’s just a case of postpartum depression, you usually don’t see people hurting others or getting aggressive.”
Mariam worked for periodontist Barry Weiss. She was fired, he said, about a year ago. He wouldn’t say why.
He did say a head injury requiring hospitalization prevented her from working for a time. Several weeks after returning, she was fired.
It’s unknown why she tried breaching a White House security barrier. She turned her car around to flee. Cops opened fire. Doing so, of course, terrified her.
She likely panicked. She sped off. She wanted to get away safely. She wanted to protect her daughter.
Being shot at is terrifying. So is being chased by armed cops and Secret Service agents. She didn’t threaten them. She deserved to live, not die.
According to Dr. Mark Mason:
“Given the fact that we have an unarmed female, the police have come forward to say she was unarmed.”
“There was an infant in the car. There was no gunfire of any kind that came from the car at any time.”
“A lot of questions need to be asked. The police in Washington DC way-way overreacted.”
“There are alternatives to respond to situations short of deadly force.”
She could have been stopped by blocking city streets or shooting out her tires. Failure to do so shows the mentality of trigger-happy cops in America today.
It bears repeating. They kill one to two civilians in America daily. They do it willfully and maliciously. Most victims are unarmed. Most committed no crimes.
Most are Blacks or Latinos. Cops shoot first. They ask questions later. Their answers don’t wash.
Militarized America leaves no one safe. Trayvon Martin, Mariam Carey, and countless others like them learned the hard way.
Their deaths reflect a national sickness. It’s a national addiction. Violent cultures operate this way. Among all developed countries, America’s by far the worst.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
That was once a time when schools did not have pencils and paper. Chalk and blackboard were luxuries. Books were a rarity. Classrooms, by today’s standards, were slums.
But today’s students are surrounded by thousands of books. Paper, pens and pencils are everywhere. A tsunami of computers and other electronic devices flows through each school. Plus, there are hundreds of websites specializing in each individual subject. Khan Academy will teach you a hundred subjects all by itself.
Need a picture of the gallbladder? Google Images has more than 1000. I just checked.
Never before in the history of the world has education been so easy. Fifty years ago, teachers had to be ingenious to find or invent what were then called teaching aids. Typically, they were primitive and boring.
Now there are sophisticated teaching aids everywhere, like low-hanging fruit in a friendly jungle.
On the other hand, almost in defiance of this galloping onrush of technology, our Education Establishment works to make teaching more difficult. If education is thriving somewhere, these professors come up with a program to justify doing less of it. Meanwhile, they have dozens of other sophistries to justify doing the wrong things. So that to an almost unimaginable degree, education for the majority of students is almost at a standstill, surrounded on all sides by glittering possibilities.
Ever since the time of John Dewey, our elite educators have tried to craft collectivist schemes. The goal is clear: every child stuck in a low gear. Why else would they insist on Whole Word to teach reading? Everyone knows it doesn’t work. Why would they force schools to use New Math and Reform Math? These things are math-killers. Kids don’t master even simple arithmetic, and end up dependent on calculators.
You really see the dark genius in something called Constructivism or Discovery. Basically, teachers have been ordered not to teach. Students are supposed to track down knowledge for themselves, which doesn’t happen quickly. The only person in the classroom who knows anything must now remain silent. Why would you implement this policy unless you are trying to stop education in its tracks?
Wherever you look, there are barriers erected against making sure children acquire basic skills and foundational knowledge. The tools and technology are there like never before in history. What’s missing is the desire.
No, it’s worse than that. The desire is raging but for leveling, for preparing children to become members of a Brave New World. That’s why Bill Ayers is a professor of education. Instead of blowing up banks, he can attack the country legally.
Now, we are confronting something called Common Core Curriculum, which will put everything under federal control and probably lock it in place at a low level. So-called Standards are best understood as goals that will rarely be reached. The Education Establishment brags about the Standards, as if by rhapsodizing about them, they will magically become reality. “These people,” Siegfried Engelmann wisely observed, “are fundamentally looking for magic.”
The Education Establishment will chatter on about proficiency, grade level, and everyone becoming college-ready. In fact, there are kids in college who can’t do simple arithmetic. In what sense were they ever college-ready? So there is misdirection taking place.
If we let teachers teach, and let them use all the new tools that are readily available, we would have a Renaissance.
The problem is, the Education Establishment won’t get out of the way. In the name of social justice, these ideologues apparently want to make kids the same.
No matter whether we’re discussing an elementary school, a music school, a computer school, a sports camp, the proper goal is always self-evident. You work with the kids you get; you take each one as far as you can. That’s obvious to the commonsense mind. You cannot help kids except by helping them to excel. If the plan is to keep kids at the same level forever, that should be called what it is, child abuse.
It’s a funny thing about American culture now. This self-evident approach is what we see in the Special Olympics. Handicapped children are encouraged to run races and compete in sporting events. That they may do it badly doesn’t matter; that they do it at all matters. They will feel better for trying. That matters. Let children try to fly. This should be the spirit of all schools.
All of these common sense elements are what our Education Establishment tries to obstruct. There is something of a backlash against Common Core. That’s a start. But there needs to be a backlash against almost everything going on in the public schools. Too often, mediocrity seems to be the secret goal.
Take a look at the following list and tell me if anything strikes you:
Viewing these, the Seven Cardinal Virtues, anything make an impression? Okay, now try the Seven Heavenly Virtues of:
Scour great works, such as the Bible, and you won’t find much talk of equality — that is, unless you consider The Communist Manifesto a great work.
One thing about virtues — which are defined as “good moral habits” — is that their exercise doesn’t require the cooperation, or compulsion, of another person. I can cultivate prudence, temperance, courage and the other virtues in myself, and I can do it all by myself. So while a virtuous society is desirable, virtue can also be a purely personal goal. And this is one time when focusing on the self needn’t be selfish, for we should take the log out of our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our brother’s.
But equality is far different. Just as there can be no numerical equality without at least two numbers, there can be no human equality on an island with a population of one. And while you could increase patience through personal change, increasing equality necessitates societal change; it involves raising people up as much as they’re able — which requires their cooperation — and insofar as they’re unable, it involves bringing others down. This is where compulsion enters the equation. The point is that, unlike with virtues, increasing equality is always an endeavor of the collective.
Another quality of virtues is that, as Aristotle noted, their cultivation is necessary for a happy life. And lack of virtue in the collective can make life harder, such as when the government stifles just economic freedom (excessive regulation), suppresses truth (hate-speech laws) or imposes some other aspect of tyranny. We also want our survival needs fulfilled: enough food and water and a roof over our heads. And we’d like the opportunity to pursue proper pleasures and dreams and exercise our creative capacity. But is actual “equality” necessary for happiness?
A long time ago, in a “previous life,” I was an aspiring tennis player. I wanted to be the best. Alas, though, it just wasn’t in the cards — I didn’t have the talent of a Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal. Yet the cards also taught me something: being a famous athlete just isn’t that important, and it certainly isn’t necessary for happiness. And what would it say about me if my happiness (or what I fancy such) were dependent upon those more talented fellows being brought down to my level?
Using a more common example, consider income inequality. If Bill Gates had never made his billions, it not only wouldn’t have put one more cent in your pocket, society would be poorer because we wouldn’t have the jobs and productivity-enhancing products he created. Moreover, when the rich invest their money in stocks, companies are provided working capital. The rich may put it in banks, too, and banks aren’t just money warehouses; they provide loans to businesses. So both these activities facilitate economic growth and more job creation. Given this, what does it say about a person when he nonetheless wants the rich cut down to size? Well, it reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s line in Thus Spake Zarathustra: “If there were Gods, how could I bear not to be a God? Consequently there are no Gods.” The class-warfare warrior may claim fellowship with the poor, but often something else lies deep in his heart: “If there are rich people, how can I bear to not be a rich person? Consequently, there must be no rich people.” Like Nietzsche, he is what he is; that his ire’s targets are greater or have more doesn’t make him less. Regardless, he’s only satisfied to be what he is if those who would have or be more don’t exist. This is because of one or both of two deadly sins: pride and envy. The cures for these, by the way, are the corresponding virtues of humility and kindness — not “equality.” Equality is the voodoo medicine of the vice-ridden man blind to virtue.
Be thankful equality isn’t necessary for happiness, too, because it is completely contrary to nature. Some species are more dominant than others; some unsuited to survival become extinct; and within species some members are bigger, stronger or faster than others. And animals have their dominance hierarchies; a silverback leads a gorilla troop, a wolf pack has an alpha male and female and chickens actually do have a pecking order.
People are no different. There are natural-born leaders and followers, alpha and beta personalities, and individuals have different gifts and capacities. The world had always recognized this, too. In fact, when young Therese of Lisieux was bothered by the idea that people would have different places even in Heaven, she was instructed to get her thimble and her father’s tumbler and fill them with water. She then was asked, “Which is more full?” Of course, secular modernists will criticize this as a Christian justification for prejudice and discrimination, but what does their world view imply?
The reality is that there’s a huge contradiction between belief in cosmic-accident evolution and belief in human equality. First, when even just one couple has a child, there are a whopping 3.1 billion possible combinations. Then there’s group variation. Do you really believe groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years — subject to different environments, stresses and adaptive requirements —and wound up being the same in every respect? This is a mathematical impossibility and a brazenly unscientific notion. As G.K. Chesterton put it, if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.”
Whatever your belief about creation, group variation in physical being and capacities is apparent. A gynecologist once told me that black women didn’t suffer as frequently from descended uteruses because they have stronger abdominal walls. And Dr. Walter Williams tells us here and here:
Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. …Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. …[D]uring the 1960s, the Chinese minority in Malaysia received more university degrees than the Malay majority — including 400 engineering degrees compared with four for the Malays, even though Malays dominate the country politically. …[Jews are] only two-tenths of 1 percent of the world’s population. Yet between 1901 and 2010, Jews were…22 percent of the world’s [Nobel Laureate winners].
And is the last statistic any surprise? Ashkenazi Jews have the highest I.Q. of any group.
Because this is an inherently unequal world, the actions of equality dogmatists such as today’s liberals can be understood as rebellion against nature. This also helps explain why they — from the French Revolutionaries to the communists to today’s liberals — practice tyranny. When your agenda is so contrary to nature and, more to the point, man’s nature, people will quite naturally act contrary to it. In fact, they will quite naturally be contrary to it. And since people can only be what they are, the agents of unnatural agendas will often say they are not to be. For no one likes having his plans spoiled, and these social engineers, enraged, will lash out at those not “good enough” to conform to the program. This of course is everyone, and killing fields are the ultimate result.
We’re not there yet, but the cultural killing field is all around us. We have government decrees stating that if groups perform differently on a test (e.g., a police exam), it is by definition “discriminatory”; and that students must be punished in racially proportional ways. We see quotas and affirmative action and lawsuits and destructive discrimination, as we tear ourselves apart fighting nature. And why? Among other things, if you believe all groups are equal in all ways, it follows that you’ll attribute different performance outcomes among them to discrimination.
One might now wonder why liberals don’t apply their diversity tenet “Embrace differences” to what really matters. After all, if you watch golf on TV, do you want to see “equality,” where everyone would have to be a duffer, or the best? Do you want “equality” in an art museum or ethereal beauty? Gifts displayed by others are to be relished, reveled in and revered. And the only thing preventing this is, again, those twin demons of envy and pride.
And what of equality dogma? It gave us the drab, cookie-cutter projects of communist Eastern Europe. It breeds ugliness and mediocrity.
Equality is not a virtue.
It is not a laudable goal.
It can never be a reality, as some will always be “more equal than others.”
And if anything deserving of the name civilization is to live, equality, as an aspiration, must die.
That appears to be a career-killing No- No.
Denison first became concerned as to the hanky panky going on in State Probate courts via her involvement in the adult guardianship of Mary G. Sykes. Sykes was put under an adult guardianship, without apparent legal jurisdiction by the Cook County Court. Neither Mary Sykes nor her adult daughter, Gloria, were served with notice of the proceedings. The court- appointed guardians have subsequently isolated the elderly woman from family and friends for roughly four years.
This is sadly not unusual in guardianship/conservatorship cases. When a concerned family member or friend attempts to intervene in what is often abuse of the “protected person” by the court- appointed guardian, the protesting party often gets treated most severely by the court. Restraining orders are passed out in these cases like salt water taffy, and more often than not there is a lack of due process involved in the restraining order hearings.
Meaning, in lay terms, that the restrained person does not get a hearing.
There also appears to be questionable financial actions taken by the guardians, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, in the Mary Sykes matter. Over a million dollars in gold coins have been unaccounted for by the guardians. Once again, this is– unfortunately– business as usual in probate court. While one of the primary functions of a guardian is to conserve the estate, many guardians tend to look at OPM–”Other People’s Money” as a free pass to whoopee it up on someone else’s dime. Guardians “forget” to do inventories, “lose” valuable artwork and antiques and in some cases “misplace” entire bank accounts.
Denison, however, found all this abuse and embezzlement to be…..inappropriate. She began a blog, marygsykes.com, which has featured articles by attorneys, award-winning journalists and bloggers as well as her own commentary on what is happening on a widespread basis in probate courts across the country. She has faithfully posted the legal documents relevant to the Sykes case.
And for this public service, Denison may lose her license to practice law.
Going into the complaint, which was filed by Jerome Larkin of the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (IARDC), one finds that Denison is being tried for exercising her right to informed free speech. Larkin cites a number of quotes from Denison on her blog as evidence of the following:
a) Making a statement which a lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge…..
b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation….
c) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice…
d) presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter….
e) conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.
I happen to think that Mr. Larkin over extended himself when he constructed this list. I have personally been reading the marygsykes blog for some time and am unaware of JoAnne Denison making any false statements. I am aware, however, that her criticisms of the malfunction of justice in these proceedings could well be considered in the category of someone declaring that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes….
In other words, JoAnne Denison speaks politically inconvenient truths.
The complaint details some of the posts by Ms. Denison concerning the failures of the court to honor Mary Sykes’ constitutional rights as well as concerns about the dispensation of her funds. Here are a couple of the posts which Larkin found objectionable:
A July 28,2012 blog entry entitled “My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Director
at the Illinois Atty General,” stating:
While the above case has a long, long history, much of which is
documented on a blog to be found at www.marygsykes.com. the
reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to
garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and mal feasance by
attorneys and the court. ..
Please look at the attached and all the information I will fax you
shortly. This is a case that could be bigger than Greylord-what is
being done to deprive grandma and grandpa of their civil rights and
how the Probate court (routinely) operates.”
Yep, them is fighting words, you can bet your booty on that. The fact that Ms. Denison’s post references concerns that have been brought to the attention of the court—a million missing dollars in gold coins, for starters–must have gotten Mr. Larkin all worked up. Because look at what else he has found objectionable in Ms. Denison’s blog:
An April 19,2012 blog entry entitled “Ken Ditkowsky’s answer to the complaint
filed against him by the ARDC via Cynthia Farenga,” wherein Respondent suggests
that the GALs and the Guardian ad Litem stole Mary Sykes’ money by stating:
Kend (sic) Ditkowsky and I have been caught up in all of this because
we have been working tirelessly on this blog and to inform others of
this situation–and those attorneys who will churn fees at hundreds of
dollars per hour-want us silenced. They apparently have a lot of clout
in Probate and even with the ARDC …
Jumping Jehosophat!! You mean an attorney can now be cited for misconduct for reporting that a guardian and attorneys have committed embezzlement and are exercising what is commonly called “undue influence”? Isn’t that what courts and the media are supposed to do? Provide a forum (a public one, to remind the reading audience) wherein acts of criminal misconduct and corruption can be ferreted out?
Or was Larkin’s real concern that Denison discussed the clout that miscreant attorneys have with both the Court and his employer, the IARDC? Was Denison hitting too close to home for his comfort?
Attorney Ken Ditkowsky has also been subject to IARDC proceedings for his involvement in the Sykes case. Ditkowsky, who has been sending out emails to Attorney General Eric Holder and others, requesting an honest and complete investigation of the Sykes case, has been recommended for four years suspension from the practice of law. Ken Ditkowsky has been licensed to practice law since the early 1960′s.
The IARDC complaint against Ditkowsky references the attorney’s efforts to investigate the Sykes matter and also his efforts to represent Mary Sykes, as requested by Mary (the court had previously declined to appoint her counsel). In addition, the complaint also references statements Ditkowsky has made relating to the integrity and qualification of judicial officers.
Since the IARDC has recommended his suspension, Ditkowsky has continued to contact federal officials with his concerns about the Sykes case. If anything, he has become louder and more insistent concerning the deprivation of rights inflicted upon Mary Sykes and others.
Ditkowsky is now referring to these cases as “elder cleansing,” a clear reference to what happened in another genocide, the first launched under Hitler, which cleansed Germany of hundreds of thousands of elderly and disabled ethnic Germans. Ditkowsky has also coined the phrase “ethics cleansing,” to refer to the removal from the Bar register attorneys who object to the abuses being administered via probate guardianships.
A letter from Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga to the IARDC has since surfaced. In the letter, dated November 20, 2011, Farenga asks the IARDC for an investigation of Ditkowsky and Denison due to a blog post which appeared on Probate Sharks in 2011. In the blog post, Ditkowsky and Denison call for a State and Federal investigation of the Sykes case.
The Farenga letter confirms the very perception, memorialized on her blog, for which Denison is now under disciplinary proceedings. The fact that Farenga and others in the probate cabal do have torque with the ARDC should exonerate Denison from prosecution for saying so. But it has not.
It is of interest that the judge in the Sykes case, Judge Jane Louise Stuart, has deep financial ties to President Obama. http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/obama-mansion-rezko-william-miceli-probate-judge-jane-l-stuart-harvey-wineberg-kenneth-j-conner-fired/
Given that Ditkowsky has repeatedly emailed officers in the Obama administration concerning this case, one must ask if favors were requested by Stuart, who appears to own Obama’s mansion.
The website for the State of Illinois states that:
The Elder Abuse and Neglect Act provides that people – who in good faith report suspected abuse or cooperate with an investigation – are immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action. It further provides that the identity of the reporter shall not be disclosed except with the written permission of the reporter or by order of a court.
This should exonerate both Denison and Ditkowsky from disciplinary action for the reasons stated by the IARDC. Possibly the law does not apply when the judge is a financial supporter of President Obama.
In any event, the word is getting out: Ethical lawyering has gone the way of the Stegosaurus.
And the First Amendment? It doesn’t specify who has free speech and who does not. One more Constitutional protection is being thrown under the bus.
James Grogan, Deputy Director for the IARDC, declined to comment on whether the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act offered protection for Denison and Ditkowsky, stating he cannot comment on pending cases. When asked if, given the fact that the judge in question appears to own President Obama’s home, there might have been some federal directives issued in these two cases, Grogan also declined to comment.
Other lawyers who have been under the gun due to their attempted defense of conservatees include Grant Goodman, AZ; Margie Mikels, California; Jim Reiss, California.
The goon thug psychopaths no longer only brutalize minorities–it is open season on all of us –the latest victim is a petite young white mother of two small children.
The worse threat every American faces comes from his/her own government.
At the federal level the threat is a seventh war (Syria) in 12 years, leading on to the eighth and ninth (Iran and Lebanon) and then on to nuclear war with Russia and China.
The criminal psychopaths in Washington have squandered trillions of dollars on their wars, killing and dispossessing millions of Muslims while millions of American citizens have been dispossessed of their homes and careers. Now the entire social safety net is on the chopping bloc so that Washington can finance more wars.
At the state and local level every American faces brutal, armed psychopaths known as the police. The “law and order” conservatives and the “compassionate” liberals stand silent while police psychopaths brutalize children and grandmothers, murder double amputees in wheel chairs, break into the wrong homes, murder the family dogs, and terrify the occupants, pointing their automatic assault weapons in the faces of small children.
The American police perform no positive function. They pose a much larger threat to citizens than do the criminals who operate without a police badge. Americans would be safer if the police forces were abolished.
The police have been militarized and largely federalized by the Pentagon and the gestapo Homeland Security. The role of the federal government in equipping state and local police with military weapons, including tanks, and training in their use has essentially removed the police from state and local control. No matter how brutal any police officer, it is rare that any suffer more than a few months suspension, usually with full pay, while a report is concocted that clears them of any wrong doing.
In America today, police murder with impunity. All the psychopaths have to say is, “I thought his wallet was a gun,” or “we had to taser the unconscious guy we found lying on the ground, because he wouldn’t obey our commands to get up.”
There are innumerable cases of 240 pound cop psychopaths beating a 115 pound woman black and blue. Or handcuffing and carting off to jail 6 and 7 year old boys for having a dispute on the school playground.
Many Americans take solace in their erroneous belief that this only happens to minorities who they believe deserve it, but psychopaths use their unaccountable power against everyone. The American police are a brutal criminal gang free of civilian control.
Unaccountable power, which the police have, always attracts psychopaths. You are lucky if you only get bullies, but mainly police forces attract people who enjoy hurting people and tyrannizing them. To inflict harm on the public is why psychopaths join police forces.
Calling the police is a risky thing to do. Often it is the person who calls for help or some innocent person who ends up brutalized or murdered by the police. For example, on September 15 CNN reported a case of a young man who wrecked his car and went to a nearby house for help. The woman, made paranoid by the “war on crime,” imagined that she was in danger and called police. When the police arrived, the young man ran up to them, and the police shot him dead.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/
People who say the solution is better police training are unaware of how the police are trained. Police are trained to perceive the public as the enemy and to use maximum force. I have watched local police forces train. Two or three dozen officers will simultaneously empty their high-capacity magazines at the same target, a minimum of 300 bullets fired at one target. The purpose is to completely destroy whatever is on the receiving end of police fire.
US prosecutors seem to be the equal to police in terms of the psychopaths in their ranks. The United States, “the light unto the world,” not only has the highest percentage of its population in prison of every other country in the world, but also has the largest absolute number of people in prison. The US prison population is much larger in absolute numbers that the prison populations of China and India, countries with four times the US population.
Just try to find a prosecutor who gives a hoot about the innocence or guilt of the accused who is in his clutches. All the prosecutor cares about is his conviction rate. The higher his conviction rate, the greater his success even if every person convicted is innocent. The higher his conviction rate, the more likely he can run for public office.
Many prosecutors, such as Rudy Giuliani, target well known people so that they can gain name recognition via the names of their victims.
The American justice (sic) system serves the political ambitions of prosecutors and the murderous lusts of police psychopaths. It serves the profit motives of the privatized prisons who need high occupancy rates for their balance sheets.
But you can bet your life that the American justice (sic) system does not serve justice.
While writing this article, I googled “police brutality,” and google delivered 4,100,000 results. If a person googles “police brutality videos,” he will discover that there are more videos than could be watched in a lifetime. And these are only those acts of police brutality that are witnessed and caught on camera.
It would take thousands of pages just to compile the information available.
The facts seem to support the case that police in the US commit more crimes and acts of violence against the public than do the criminals who do not wear badges. According to the FBI crime Statistics http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/summaryin 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes committed by people without police badges. Keep in mind that the definition of violent crime can be an expansive definition. For example, simply to push someone is considered assault. If two people come to blows in an argument, both have committed assault. However, even with this expansive definition of violent crimes, police assaults are both more numerous and more dangerous, as it is usually a half dozen overweight goon thugs beating and tasering one person.
Reports of police brutality are commonplace, but hardly anything is ever done about them. For example, on September 10, AlterNet reported that Houston, Texas, police routinely beat and murder local citizens. http://www.alternet.org/investigations/cops-are-beating-unarmed-suspect-nearly-every-day-houston?akid=10911.81835.yRJa7d&rd=1&src=newsletter894783&t=9&paging=off
The threat posed to the public by police psychopaths is growing rapidly. Last July 19 the Wall Street Journal reported: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment–from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers–American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the US scene: the warrior cop–armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”
The Wall Street Journal, being an establishment newspaper, has to put it as nicely as possible. The bald fact is that today’s cop in body armor with assault weapons, grenades, and tanks is not there to make arrests of suspected criminals. He is there in anticipation of protests to beat down the public for exercising constitutional rights.
To suppress public protests is also the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security Police, a federal para-military police force that is a new development for the United States. No one in their right mind could possibly think that the vast militarized police have been created because of “the terrorist threat.” Terrorists are so rare that the FBI has to round up demented people and talk them into a plot so that the “terrorist threat” can be kept alive in the public’s mind.
The American public is too brainwashed to be able to defend itself. Consider the factthat cops seldom face any consequence when they murder citizens. We never hear cops called “citizen killer.” But if a citizen kills some overbearing cop bully, the media go ballistic: “Cop killer, cop killer.” The screaming doesn’t stop until the cop killer is executed.
As long as a brainwashed public continues to accept that cop lives are more precious than their own, citizens will continue to be brutalized and murdered by police psychopaths.
I can remember when the police were different. If there was a fight, the police broke it up. If it was a case of people coming to blows over a dispute, charges were not filed. If it was a clear case of assault, unless it was brutal or done with use of a weapon, the police usually left it up to the victim to file charges.
When I lived in England, the police walked their beats armed only with their billysticks.
When and why did it all go wrong? Among the collection of probable causes are the growth or urban populations, the onslaught of heavy immigration on formerly stable and predictable neighborhoods, the war on drugs, and management consultants called in to improve efficiency who focused police on quantitative results, such as the number of arrests, and away from such traditional goals as keeping the peace and investigating reported crimes.
Each step of the way accountability was removed in order to more easily apprehend criminals and drug dealers. The “war on terror” was another step, resulting in the militarization of the police.
The replacement of jury trials with plea bargains meant that police investigations ceased to be tested in court or even to support the plea, usually a fictitious crime reached by negotiation in order to obtain a guilty plea. Police learned that all prosecutors needed was a charge and that little depended on police investigations. Police work became sloppy. It was easier simply to pick up a suspect who had a record of having committed a similar crime.
As justice receded as the goal, the quality of people drawn into police work changed. Idealistic people found that their motivations were not compatible with the process, while bullies and psychopaths were attracted by largely unaccountable power.
Much of the blame can be attributed to “law and order” conservatives. Years ago when New York liberals began to observe the growing high-handed behavior of police, they called for civilian police review boards. Conservatives, such as National Review’s William F. Buckley, went berserk, claiming that any oversight over the police would hamstring the police and cause crime to explode.
The conservatives could see no threat in the police, only in an effort to hold police accountable. As far as I can tell, this is still the mindset.
What we observed in the police response to the Boston Marathon bombing suggests that the situation is irretrievable. One of the country’s largest cities and its suburbs–100 square miles–was tightly locked down with no one permitted to leave their homes, while 10,000 heavily armed police, essentially combat soldiers armed with tanks, forced their way into people’s homes, ordering them out at gunpoint. The excuse given for this unprecedented gestapo police action was a search for one wounded 19-year old kid.
That such a completely unnecessary and unconstitutional event could occur in Boston without the responsible officials being removed from office indicates that “the land of the free” no longer exists. The American population of the past, suspicious of government and jealous of its liberty, has been replaced by a brainwashed and fearful people, who are increasingly referred to as “the sheeple.”
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Source: Paul Craig Roberts
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers . . . . The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.” ~ Aldous Huxley
Hello, welcome, come on in. Please find a seat. I’m excited to be here with you today; we will take a look at how public opinion is so easily molded by promoters of the state. Many of us use the word “propaganda” a lot and it’s helpful to understand some basics about what propaganda is and how it is used. Messages released through traditional media organs can now be more effectively challenged directly by interested persons from outside the media priesthood, thanks to the Internet. Until we do this more effectively there will continue to be a trend of hyperactivity towards the police state at home and abroad and the serial-warring will continue. So, here we are; let’s get to it.
The word “propaganda” is often used when trying to explain how the state has been able to maintain such a powerful stranglehold over the collective imagination. Propaganda walks the fine line between what is known and what is purposely hidden while appealing to base emotions of fear and loyalty. Americans have been conditioned to react to this word by associating it with words like Nazi, Fascist, Communist and Terrorist. Basically, propaganda is what Bad Guys do, not Good Guys. Why would Good Guys do anything but tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You see, Good Guys don’t control the media and good old capitalist media hacks are just giving the people what they want. Right? So, when you say “propaganda,” many people will immediately think that there is no way “our professional journalists” and “our politicians” could possibly do anything so awful to the good people of the United States of America as to inseminate the seed of propaganda into the Red, White and Blue body politic. No sir-ree, only conspiracy theorists believe stuff like that. Only Bad Guys do that and “we,” by definition, are the Good Guys. Now back to reality.
The traditional media machine is sold as being a necessary social institution, completely outside of the state (except for licenses – but don’t mind them), that wields a mighty pen with righteous indignation at political scandals and as giving The People a “voice.” The Third Rail of politics is used to “keep them honest” or “keep their feet to the fire,” for noble purposes, of course, like, say Social Security, Health Care, the Drug War or bombing foreigners. Because these trained and certified journalists had to work their way up the corporate ladder, honing their integrity, sense of honesty and desire to speak truth to power! But, gasp, people today look to the Internet and read ideas written by people who didn’t study in the media education mills or learn to kiss the right spots on the behinds of the right people! The self-serving glorification of mainstream media persons can only be surpassed by politicians themselves. The good news is that liberty has a golden opportunity today because this monopoly on the communication of ideas to the masses controlled by the melded interests of the state and big corporations has been disrupted by new technology.
The manipulation of messages to promote favorable outcomes for a messenger when interpreted by those receiving the message is as old as the first handshake. But how that message is delivered has changed profoundly a few notable times, including the most recent iteration over the past 150 or so years. The written word, developed thousands of years ago, changed communication with the masses from a very personal event with lots of shouting to a non-personal event that put the focus of thought onto the words themselves. It changed everything in society, some good and some not so good. The elite always have used their influence to promote conditions that ensure and/or expand their positions and advantages, often at the expense of the common man. This is not new; however, it has become more complex over the ages.
When the printing press came along in the Middle Ages, it allowed for many copies of written ideas to be distributed simultaneously; this changed how society organized again. The world gets smaller with each advance in communication technology. The most recent step with computers is a continuation of the electronic communications revolution started in the mid to late-1800s. The inventions of telegraph, telephone, radio and television communications made distances literally disappear for people spreading ideas far and wide. The computer has combined all of these technologies into one platform. Now there is a race between liberty and the state seeking to squelch the freedom of ideas in society with laws, regulations, licenses and official messages crowding out the truth.
The term propaganda has its roots in the writings of the Medieval Catholic Church priests wishing to propagate their faith to wider audiences using the new technology: the printing press. Machiavelli wrote a popular book for monarchists that incorporated some age-old theocratic tactics and strategies for modern (at the time) use. Hitler is often given credit for the modern resurgence of propaganda with his use of rituals, including nighttime rallies, fire, symbolism, loudspeakers, mass printing of pamphlets, film distribution, and radio transmissions as well as his autobiographical best-selling book Mein Kampf. But it is Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the man known as the “father of public relations” in the United States that deserves the real credit for modern propaganda. I don’t have the time today to go into a detailed history, so please do a search for Edward Bernays for a little interesting homework on the man who inspired the use of modern propaganda.
I want to spend the rest of our limited time looking at a recent article in the mainstream media as a case study in how crude propaganda is passed off of as serious journalism. It goes on everyday in every country, hidden in plain sight. Lies implying the “why” mixed-in with the hard, cold facts of who, what, where and when told by messengers posturing as journalists simply reporting impartial facts to We the People; their agendas hidden behind the façade of good intentions and given legitimacy by official blessings. These statist scribes are the perpetrators of never-ending war as they advertise a continuum of ridiculous propaganda phrases like “Making the World Safe for Democracy,” “World’s Policeman” and “War on Terror.”
First and foremost, propaganda must maintain the veil of legitimacy by speaking with authority. Power (of Authority) is to be reckoned with is the theme of all primary communications. Further, the faithful must always kneel to the powerful or society will fall apart is the subtext to all statist propaganda. Authority must be seen as the savior of society, so the people will ignore the universal faults of the state’s all too human agents. A good example of this in the run-up to the “strike” on Syria using “precision bombing” is the recent piece by Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent called “The White House Walk-and-Talk That Changed Obama’s Mind on Syria.” I didn’t choose this example because it is exceptional, quite the contrary, it is all too typical and you have probably read countless versions of the same message in all of the mainstream media organs.
First, a picture is inserted showing the powerful, wise leaders in deep thought as they weigh the fate of the world on the scales of justice. This helps to establish the authority of the words that follow. Then it’s simply the Hegelian Dialectic writ large. Party A’s political agenda (thesis) is reported and discussed along with the opposing political agenda of Party B (anti-thesis). Then what results is not the clear triumph of either argument, it is the advancement to a “superior” argument C (synthesis). Position C was the elite objective all along and now the process starts over again. This is how each step on the path to perpetual war is so seamless no matter who occupies the chairs at the table of authority. Both sides are allowed occasional meaningless victories to shore up their base and stay in the game, but true victory is ever elusive and defeat always on the horizon. This is the futile system of organizing society we have inherited and glorify; a system based on lies and obfuscation to ensure elite control of the debate. We can do better.
Here is the link to the whole article published on August 31, 2013 at NBCNews.com.
Here is the picture of the official deciders provided by official photographers and released by official spokespersons with caption, by-line and intro:
President Barack Obama meets with his national security advisers in the White House Situation Room on Saturday to discuss strategy in Syria. Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is fourth from right.
By Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent
A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.
Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “a thug and a murderer” and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.
NBC’s Chuck Todd says up front these powerful wise men met to “discuss strategy in Syria,” but it is really to discuss strategy for how to get away with bombing Syria. The strategy of bombing Syria is de facto assumed from the start: the leader of the little state on the other side of the world is “a thug and a murderer,” so therefore, the leader of the big state must bomb the people of the little state until they overthrow their leader. Isn’t that the definition of terrorism? State murder is referred to as a strategy, while independent murder is terrorism.
Todd then describes the political process for seeking congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, and says that the president’s decision to wait on Congress is a departure from 30 years of strengthening executive branch power. Thus, Our Fearless Leader is not afraid to go his own way to do the right thing and is a Man of the People.
Obama’s National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.
Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.
Note the use of institutional words describing mere mortal men to give these deciders the anointing of authority to “strike” at the enemy. These experts “determined the evidence” does indeed support their agenda, as if it could have been any other way. Our Fearless Leader was only “leaning toward a strike.”
But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week. And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.
Ah, so the legitimacy of initiating violence and raining bombs upon foreign peoples who are not a threat to this politician’s constituency is undermined by his constituency opposing his attack. Our Allies seem to be having the same problem; this is nasty business in a purported democracy, but just a speed bump for the propagandist to navigate. Note that the article doesn’t say that Congress questioned the President’s strategy of bombing Syria, just his strategy of how to accomplish this already determined goal by selling that agenda.
While Obama’s advisers argued Friday night in private that the humiliating defeat for Cameron starkly illustrated the risks of asking for congressional input, the president responded that the vote in Parliament demonstrated exactly why he should seek a vote on this side of the Atlantic, senior officials told NBC News.
And, the president insisted, seeking legislative backing was the approach most consistent with his philosophy. While debate within the administration continued into late Friday, by Saturday morning the senior advisers acquiesced.
President Obama says the nation should and will take action against the Syrian government, but not without congressional approval.
So President Obama has already made up his mind to bomb Syria, but he wants Congress to publicly back his decision so that when the action goes bad, he can spread the blame around. Congress, on the other hand, wants Obama to order the missile attack on Syria, but is afraid of the voters and doesn’t want to go on record endorsing it. It’s all “legal,” you know, for the emperor to bomb whoever he wants whenever he wants, but it would just be more “consistent with his philosophy” if he had some public support. This entire session was over the timing of the attack with the major concern being getting re-elected, not doing the right thing.
The president also noted, “while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”
White House aides said they are fairly confident that Congress will grant them the authority to launch a strike, although they maintain that Obama would be acting within his constitutional authority even if Congress rejects the authorization and Obama orders military intervention.
There’s an upside to that cooling-off period too, aides said. The delay gives Obama time to make his case to Congress and to keep pushing for international support.
This is the purpose of the article: to “make the case” for a strike. Notice again how the article is careful not to frame the decision as being one between attacking and not attacking Syria, but of how to sell a decision that has already been made. The only question is timing. The rest of the article is pure hypocrisy and emotional appeals seeking to give the impression that killing Syrians is the moral thing to do. Pure theater of the absurd promulgated by a willing hack posing as a “journalist.”
Now, is there some apparatchik sitting in a US Ministry of Propaganda giving orders to NBC newsmen or any other mainstream media hacks about what to write and publish? No, there doesn’t have to be, which is worse, because dribble like the above article is seen as “independent” and “just reporting the news.” And it is well written for accomplishing its purpose. However, does it even hint that there is a case for non-intervention? No. Does it ever mention that the “rebels” being supported by Obama and his minions are “thugs and murderers”? No. Does it say that evidence has been provided indicating that the surrogate terrorists seeking to overthrow the Syrian leader have used chemical weapons, originally started the conflict and are mostly from other Arab countries allied with the US? Of course not, because that does not promote the official agenda.
The fact that this attack has not yet occurred is testament to the power of the Internet and how it affects public opinion. Even just ten years ago, the emperor could send out some trumped up evidence (e.g. yellow cake purchases) against the hated dictator-of-the-month who stopped being useful to their CIA handlers and these lap dog journalists would fight over who could exaggerate the official propaganda the most. Today it is common knowledge that the US government and its surrogates have been backing “thugs and murderers” in Syria and that they have not been successful. Since these agents of death and mayhem are failing at their assignment to overthrow the Syrian dictator, the US government felt compelled to escalate the killing by becoming directly involved.
Ten years ago, the missiles would already be raining down on the water, sewer and electric plants of Syria in “precision strikes,” causing even greater human misery. You see, these brilliant strategic thinkers believe that the way to “save” people from their dictators is to destroy their society and its infrastructure, thus starving the people that aren’t directly killed by missiles and bombs. This then necessitates an occupation with “boots-on-the-ground” (that will be denied will ever happen right up to the time they “must” be sent in) to help them partially rebuild what was destroyed, also to be paid for by US taxpayers. And, of course, this requires giant embassies and military bases to be built by government contractors around the country. How long this game plan can be delayed is hard to foresee, but I doubt that it can be avoided for long, given the sociopathic powers that be. Still, this delay reveals that the elite recognize their grip on popular opinion is waning.
In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted here that President Obama really didn’t make this decision himself, as it was made years ago by his superiors in the so-called military-industrial-complex. Obama is just the current Puppet-in-Chief trying to sell more wars to the American public. Just listen to this short excerpt from an interview of General Clark. Here is the main point:
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: …I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Well, there you go. That’s all we have time for today and I’m afraid I’ve already gone long. I hope that when you read and listen to “the news” or “official statements” that you remember to use your propaganda filter and take it with a grain of salt. Challenge official lies whenever and however you can. And when these shameless liars start waving the flag to inspire you to give up more treasure and blood for big corporations and their political machines, don’t fall for it. Remember, real Good Guys don’t need propaganda if they are doing the right thing. So stand up to the powerful media mavens and be heard because your voice is just as legitimate as any journalist’s. Speaking truth to power is essential if we are to break the cycle of endless war. Thank you for coming.
Source: Mark Davis | Strike the Root
“Most people today stand for nothing and hate nothing and as a result fight for nothing” ~ R. J. Rushdoony
Hate has been the subtle weapon used to push the Black agenda into American social life. It bears an uncanny resemblance to Zionist policies of forcing acceptance by legal mandate. Both Jews and Blacks have succeeded in gaining sympathy by skillfully describing past suffering and convincing a feckless contemporary Caucasian population that they are owed a debt. Jews have used the Holocaust to gain sympathy and Blacks have used slavery in exactly the same way. Reparations are a Jewish idea that has been co-opted by Blacks. Black hate for Whites is centered on slavery while Jewish hate goes back to the Cross.
A recent email link showed Elbert Guillory, a Black Senator from the 24th District of Louisiana giving a careful explanation of why he has switched to the Republican Party. The sender hoped it would “go viral”. The link is here.
Speaking from a softly darkened church sanctuary Senator Guillory maintains the Republican Party is a better friend to Blacks than the Democratic Party. He believes Liberal Democratic programs have hurt Blacks by making them dependent and controlling them. He says the government should preserve freedom and keep its nose out of the education of our children as well as our phone calls and emails. Guillory claims these proper ideas are the core of the Republican Party.
White Americans are seriously gullible. They think that if a politician speaks the name of Jesus he or she must be a Christian. When a Black politician claims to believe in Constitutional government he gains immediate attention. The distortion of partisan support for Blacks is ignored and a naive assessment of the core of the Republican Party is overlooked.
Black leader Randall Robinson was recently featured on C-Span supporting reparations to Blacks. With his softly intellectual erudition Robinson is a convincing advocate for a program that would by immoral, larcenous, divisive, ineffective, and tragic.
Craig Steven Wilder, a professor at MIT, has put together an expose entitled “Ebony and Ivy” subtitled “Race, Slavery and the Troubled History of American Universities. In an interview by Black radio personality Joe Madison, Wilder claims that his heavily footnoted record of slave ownership by Christian college leaders and slave money going to support universities is a factual account that should indict former White educators. Wilder is a talented scholar but his book is a partisan attempt to keep the fires of racial hatred burning brightly. See the interview here.
Guillory, Robinson, and Wilder are engaged in a rhetorical revolution but there are others who are more cogent. Ayo Kimathi, a Department of Homeland Security employee, would like to start a world-wide race war between Blacks and Whites. See the video here.
Jews have exerted heavy influence on the Black agenda in America. They directed the NAACP from its inception in the early Twentieth Century into the mid-Nineteen Sixties. See here and here. They control the press and media and have used its immense influence to promote Black policies. Jewish speech writers produced speeches for Dr. Martin Luther and many other Black leaders.
Though vehemently debunked by Jewish voices this statement attributed to Israel Cohen in a 1912 piece called “A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century” was read into the Congressional Record on June 7th, 1957, Vol. 3, p8559: “We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.” In response to questions concerning the authenticity of this quote Canadian Jewish writer and inventor Henry Makow believes it is authentic. Read here.
In 1858 Abraham Lincoln entitled a famous speech “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot
Stand”. His source for this titular wisdom was Matthew 12:25 in the Christian Bible. His solution was dreadful but this concept is being successfully used by contemporary White haters to destroy the United States of America.
The case against George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin was justly adjudicated by Stamford police chief Bill Lee and would have been closed if the media had not intentionally distorted the facts and created an issue that has destroyed lives, exacerbated racial tensions and threatened justice. Blacks are unwitting pawns for a Jewish agenda. Louis Farrakhan has noticed this manipulation but most Black leaders have not.
Hate is the driving force behind Jewish success in undermining White Christian culture. Jewish hate is mostly covert while Black hate is mostly overt. Jews use Blacks to disrupt White society. Contemporary White Americans have never owned slaves. They generally treat both Jews and Blacks with respect. Millions of Jews opt to live in the U. S. rather than Israel and Blacks do not emigrate to Africa because they live better here than anywhere else in the world.
Hate is used to create and support war. It is created by skillfully propagandizing naïve citizens. In the United States hate for Germans and Japanese was almost universal during WWII. Song writers composed songs, the newspapers told of horrible atrocities, the government declared war, Germans became “Huns”, the Japanese became “Japs” and murder became the spirit of the day. Young men joined the Army with the specific intent of killing Huns and Japs.
Hate is manipulated to conform to the latest government agenda. A new category in our cancerous legal system is called Hate Crimes. Hate crimes are offenses committed against individuals or institutions because of their race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or religion. Hate crimes involve victims under special government protection. These laws are effective in creating anger and separation.
In the secular world people are forced to hate what the sovereign hates. If the government is sovereign it will decide what should be hated. Hate crimes force the population to grant special treatment to individuals protected by government mandate.
Freedom finds its zenith when the sovereignty of the One True God is recognized and His commandments are allowed to rule the society. Secular governments always result in tyranny. In a God fearing society evil is easily identified as disobedience to God’s Commandments. Freedom cannot exist without hatred for evil. When government attempts to rule a social order without the overarching Commandments of the God of the Bible, brutality is forthcoming.
Courts that seek adjudication through competing advocates subject their victims to a cruel gamble. The varied opinions of wicked men cannot produce justice. Justice is produced by courts that seek righteousness and hate evil.
Contrary to prevailing opinion God’s Law was not given to Moses as an impediment to freedom but rather as a formula for producing peace, order, and prosperity for His creation. God seeks obedience because obedience produces the most joyful and productive existence. Love is impossible without a healthy disdain for evil.
Pervasive New Testament Christianity is a cultish distortion of the full orbed religion God has given us in His Word. He gives us miraculous healings and prophetic blessings but when we fail to obey His Commandments He gives us and effete and useless confusion. This confusion has marked American Christianity for at least the past half century.
The Devil is delighted when Christians busy themselves with predicting the Second Coming or work to arouse the Holy Spirit in order to obtain blessings. He is delighted when preachers confine their preaching to the gifts God has for His people, when they use expository preaching to avoid addressing current issues, or when they emphasize love as if it is a warm emotional bath.
I receive innumerable requests from well meaning cultish Christians who want me to read a current prophetic utterance from their favorite prognosticator. They are rapt with its truth. Unfortunately, this waste of emotional energy has been going on for decades and if God’s Commandments were properly enforced the sources of these bogus prophecies would cease.
Our adversary, Satan, uses hate effectively as a weapon against Christianity. Christians are an easy target because they are unable to hate an enemy they have failed to define. The distorted, Pietism love of New Testament Christianity leaves them in open view without weapons and worse yet without understanding..
Love and hate are inextricably entwined with Christianity. Hate for sin is an essential part of the Christian life.
In no particular order:
One: Give the appearance of unifying the country behind the President, who “did his job the right way,” by going to Congress for approval. This elevates Obama’s ratings and, by inference, suggests that his other programs should be accorded more merit. A wartime president always gains more support.
Two: Give the people an adrenaline rush. The effect should never be underestimated. Cleanses the pores, cleans the slate, and relieves frustration by proxy, temporarily…if you have very little access to your cerebral functions.
Three: In this case, winning Congressional approval reinstates the illusion, for a few moments, that we are a Constitutional Republic, with a government dedicated to justice.
Four: Help fulfill the long-planned US-Israeli agenda of destabilizing Syria and causing it to partition into warring and chaotic ethnic factions.
Five: Stop the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Syria, which would boost Iran’s economy by sending Iranian gas to Europe. Iran’s economy must be torpedoed.
Six: Send a message throughout the Middle East that the US is all-powerful and the dollar must remain the reserve currency in all oil transactions.
Seven: Feed the US military-industrial complex, which demands wars.
Eight: Aid the long-term goal of Globalism/Free Trade, which involves putting the entire Middle East into unresolvable debt and suffering…and then coming in with outside elite bankster financing, to rebuild the entire region and own it, lock, stock, and barrel.
Nine: Distract Americans from a number of scandals, including: Benghazi, Fast&Furious, IRS non-profit division crimes, NSA spying, the continuing failed war in Afghanistan, and a tanking domestic economy with more and more people living below the poverty line.
None of these reasons has anything to do with “punishing Assad for using chemical weapons.” In any case, that whole scenario has been thrown into extreme doubt.
Your government at work.
It’s now painfully clear that Obama’s war on Syria is a replay of Bush’s march to war in Iraq, both built on lies. Zero evidence has been put forth that proves the Syrian government used chemical weapons. On the contrary, evidence has been collected that suggests the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are responsible for the attack.
If Obama wages an aggressive attack on Syria — especially without UN authorization — he’ll be committing a major international crime that will, by any standard, make him a war criminal, just like Bush before him.
And because Obama’s attack on Syria followed Bush’s logic, you’d assume that liberal, progressive, and other Left groups would do what they did when Bush went to war: denounce it unconditionally and organize against it.
But that’s not what happened. Because this didn’t happen, less accurate information was made available to the public, and fewer public mobilizations have occurred, thus re-enforcing Obama’s ability to wage an aggressive war.
There are four pieces of information that all left groups have a duty to report about Syria, but they have either ignored or minimized:
1) Obama presented zero evidence to back up his main justification for war: that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians.
2) A top UN investigator, Carla Del Ponte, blamed a previous chemical weapons attack on the U.S.-backed rebels.
3) Any attack on Syria, no matter how “limited,” has a high risk of expanding into neighboring countries if Syria exercises its right as a sovereign nation to defend itself.
4) A war against Syria will be a violation of international law, since it is not approved by the UN, and therefore will make President Obama a war criminal.
There has been a broad spectrum of leftist failure to address these issues and condemn Obama’s war, ranging from those who take an overtly pro-war position to those who use anti-war slogans that are stained with pro-war justifications. A consistent “Hands Off Syria” message was hard to find.
The most guilty parties who have aided and assisted Obama’s expected war plans will have blood-stained hands after the bombing begins. Perhaps the best example of this coterie is Van Jones, the former adviser to Obama who founded the Rebuild The Dream organization. On CNN, Jones announced his new appetite for foreign war (Preview) :
“I think we need to stand behind this president and send a clear message to Assad that this type behavior is not acceptable.”
Many liberals took Jones’ “stand by our president” approach, even if it wasn’t stated as directly as Jones did, and even after “our president” was unable to present any sensible reason for waging another aggressive war in the Middle East.
A notch lower on the leftist spectrum of Syria war guilt is MoveOn.org, which has done everything in their power not to portray President Obama’s actions in their true light. But MoveOn had to take a more creative approach to covering up for Obama in Syria.
MoveOn organized a “teach-in” that was streamed on their website. The panel of speakers — with one exception — presented Obama’s position in a very evenhanded, “objective” way, presenting the president as an entirely reasonable person for wanting to bomb Syria, even if it might not be the best way to deal with the situation.
Instead of pointing out the flagrant similarities between Obama’s Syria war rationale and George Bush’s Iraq War lies, these similarities were papered over, thus legitimizing Obama’s criminal actions.
The worst Obama apologist on the panel was Matt Duss from the Center for American Progress, who explained that, although he was against a war on Syria, he “respects” that “other progressives of good faith may come to a different view.”
Phyllis Bennis from the Institute of Policy Studies was the only consistent anti-war panelist, who appeared as a fringe element when compared to the rest of the panel, only because she offered a common sense, consistent anti-war message.
The teach-in ended with a “what can we do” segment to influence the situation. Instead of mobilizing in the streets against Obama, the panelists discussed “contacting congressmen,” “calling the White House’s comment line,” “tweeting,” “email,” “petitions,” but no call was made for doing what was done against Bush: mobilize people in the streets to demand that the war be stopped.
MoveOn further exposed their pro-Obama, pro-war attitude on the website, where for days the featured petition being promoted was titled: “President Obama: Don’t Strike Syria Without Congressional Approval.”
Again, there is no basis for any strike on Syria, period — Congressional approval or otherwise. Even if Congress doesn’t approve Obama’s actions in Syria, it’s likely that he’ll attack Syria anyway, just as happened in Libya after Congress refused authorization.
On the lower end of the spectrum of leftist failure on Syria sits the International Socialist Organization (ISO). After Obama announced his intention to attack Syria, the ISO’s main article, “Imperial Hypocrisy to Justify an Assault,” neglected to address any of the above-stated four critical points about the situation in Syria.
But the ISO’s article went beyond mere neglect of facts; in several instances it re-enforced Obama’s war plans by unquestionably accepting Obama’s claim that there was “evidence” that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.
“The mass killing in Ghouta was so awful that it forced the debate on Syria to a head. The warheads filled with sarin gas were targeted not at rebel fighters, but women and children in their beds. Their lungs filled with fluid, suffocating them. Hundreds more suffered severe and crippling injuries. Anyone with a sense of justice will be incensed by such a calculated effort to terrorize a vulnerable civilian population.”
Nowhere in the ISO article does it say “Hands Off Syria” or does it clearly denounce Obama’s pending attack on Syria. The article merely states that the U.S. is acting “hypocritically,” which, although true, falls tragically short of the needed response, therefore allowing more political space for Obama to wage a brutal attack.
It’s important to note that the above groups and individuals also politically failed BEFORE Obama announced a direct military intervention, since they did not sound the alarm bells of the long-approaching attack.
For example, the U.S. has been training, funding, and arming Syrian rebels for almost two years now, while having led the diplomatic organizing efforts of a group of rich Syrian exiles that Obama refers to as the “legitimate” government of Syria. Obama stated several times that “Assad must go.” The political Left had a duty to explain the significance of these events and their likely outcome, direct U.S. military intervention.
All of the above groups are also guilty of demonizing Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad, buying in on the propaganda that he is worse than the Al Qaeda-linked rebels who are attacking him. This is a crucial element of justifying any aggressive war. Every head of state that is targeted by the U.S. government must be portrayed as an inspiring “Hitler,” since attacking a nation led by “Hitler” is, of course, a “good” thing to do.
And although opinion is certainly divided over Assad, those in the U.S. wishing to stop an aggressive war must focus on the actions of their own country.
“Hands Off Syria” is a united front demand, meaning that it’s intentionally aimed to create a broad based appeal in an effort to mobilize as many people as possible. No anti-war movement — or any social movement — is powerful without massive, ongoing mobilizations.
Within the united front demand of Hands Off Syria there is plenty of room for other tactics and room to discuss the deeper politics of the movement, but creating the largest possible mobilizations must be the base ingredient, and this can only be done under a demand that is capable of bringing together broad sections of the U.S. public.
The question of war sadly remains the greatest immediate threat the world faces, especially in light of an increasingly conflict-ridden and dangerous Middle East.
The United States government is hell-bent on reckless wars that are increasingly likely to spiral out of control as they bring abject misery to the affected populations around the world while funneling money for badly needed social programs here in the U.S. into campaigns of death and destruction. Unequivocally denouncing U.S. foreign aggression is the duty of all working people who value peace, hate war, and aspire to create a better world.
Hands Off Syria! Bring the Troops Home NOW!
American presidents, starting with Kennedy-Johnson in Vietnam to Bush-Obama, pushed America into deadly, costly, disastrous and pointless wars in the last 50 years. Millions of people died while the American “Silent majority” sat quietly watching the slaughter on the evening news. As Walter Cronkite said, “And that’s the way it is.”
At this moment, Barack Obama races toward a bombing campaign on the Syrian people. He mandates death, destruction and mayhem on a country and people struggling in their own civil war. He uses an excuse like Assad “gassing” his own people.
Harry Truman used the “Domino Effect” to stop communism from conquering Korea. We lost 33,000 young men and killed thousands more of their troops. Countless civilians died. Korea solved nothing because it proved to be a civil war. It has cost over $1 trillion for troop deployment and logistics for the past 60 years.
Lyndon Baines Johnson used the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” to justify sending 58,319 young American kids to their deaths and killing over 2.1 million Vietnamese soldiers, men, women and children. He poisoned their land with Agent Orange that still kills and disfigures into 2013.
Then came 9/11 to give George W. Bush justification to bomb the hell out of a goat-herder third world country like Afghanistan into little pieces. Never mind that nearly all 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Ten years later, after killing bin Laden, we still haven’t “conquered” Afghanistan, but we lost 1,400 American kids to ugly deaths and another 1,500 who committed suicide from the insanity of that war.
A special note: I followed an M.D.’s book about Vietnam whereby 175,000 to 200,000 American combat troops that left Vietnam in one piece—later committed suicide. Countless tens of thousands suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and drank or drugged themselves into their own private hells after the torture of Vietnam. Predications for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as to American suicides: estimated at over 200,000 suicides will ultimately manifest by our returning troops. Hundreds and thousands will suffer a lifetime of PTSD.
Out of nowhere, George W. Bush dreamed up “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and his “shock and awe” bombing rampage into Iraq. He killed over a quarter of a million innocent men, women and children. He used bunker-busting bombs with depleted uranium that poisons the soils of Iraq for centuries. He killed 4,400 of our finest young men and women and left 35,000 hideously wounded.
Today, Barack Obama, a man who never served in the U.S. armed forces, who instead, smoked a lot of dope and snorted drugs, and who knows nothing of the horrors of war—stands ready to send bombers into Syria because he thinks he’s going to stop Assad from gassing his people.
“Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies.” –Thomas Jefferson to J. Correa de Serra, 1820.
Obama, enjoys the unearned and unwarranted Nobel Peace Prize of 2009, yet threatens to expand his ever widening “War on Everything” from Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, Al-Awlaki and his son and nephew, Snowden, Manning, Assange, Rosen and now Syria.
I must ask you Mr. Obama, is killing everything but the 2013 Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens football team the answer?
Finally, what about our feckless U.S. Congress? The Constitution mandates that all war choices must be agreed by the House and Senate. Instead, we let LBJ, Bush II and now, Obama, wage wars they cannot justify and, in the end, will kill a lot of people, but do nothing good in the world nor will they accomplish anything good. Additionally, the president has no legal authority to attack Syria absent congressional and United Nations Security Council approval.
What about each American citizen who cannot be bothered to participate, but watches by the sidelines as the 21st century “Silent Majority”? How many more innocent, brain-washed kids must die, not in service to America, but in service to the U.S. Military Industrial Complex and the bankers—who provoke, guide and determine wars? Plus, make a lot of money on our mechanized military violence!
John Lennon sang, “Give peace a chance.” If we citizens take action by stopping our government from waging useless, insane and meaningless wars—a lot of our children will be able to live their lives instead of being sacrificed like sheep to the slaughter.
Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.
The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.
Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.
Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.
The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/obama-administration-accepts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See also http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/
In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/
The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization. In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.
In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.
In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.”http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.
This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.
The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.
What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”
Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”
The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.
The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.
Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?
Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”
Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.
Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.
Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.
Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.
Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.
Source: Paul Craig Roberts
This past Tuesday night, I sat in my chair watching NBC’s Lester Holt report on two black kids, 15 and 16, along with a bi-racial kid shoot and kill a 22 year old Australian college kid on a training run past their house in Duncan, Oklahoma.
When asked why they did it. They responded, “For the fun of it.”
The news reported, “Twenty-two-year-old Chris Lane of Melbourne, Australia, was killed for no reason while out running in the town of Duncan, Oklahoma. Police arrested Chancey Luna, 16, James Edwards, 15 and Michael Jones, 17, on first degree murder charges.”
Duncan Police Chief Dan Ford said the boys gave the simplest of motives, “Overcoming a boring end to their summer vacation.”
The 16 year-old Luna said they were bored and killed Lane for “the fun of it.”
They shot him in the back after he ran past their house. I sat in my chair dumb-struck at the utter horror, stupidity and sickening savagery of the entire report. Lester Holt remained emotionless while speaking his words to millions of Americans. It turned my guts. It made me sick to my stomach. The killing left a gaping “why” in my brain.
Will millions of African-Americans protest in the streets because two black boys and a bi-racial boy killed an Australian white kid running past their house “for the fun of it”? Will they call for justice like they did in the Trayvon Martin case? Will white Americans protest the killings by taking to the streets and demanding justice?
Sadly, blacks and whites won’t even whimper a sound at the killing of the white Australian college man named Chris Lane. But I want to delve into this type of insanity a little deeper.
I think our society suffers from a deep down sickness for too many of its citizens. Every 15 seconds, some American man, whether husband or father, beats the hell out of a woman.
“Violence against women is pervasive throughout the United States. One in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in their lives. On average, three women are killed every day at the hands of a current or former intimate partner.”~ National Network to End Domestic Violence.
Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse or girlfriend to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend annually.
Those factoids sicken me. What causes such incredible violence to the weaker sex? Why don’t we address it? The causes? The solutions?
Surely we could encourage community, jobs, education and fellowship to vanquish such violence within our country. Instead, we fund 10 year wars that kill even more people by guns, bombs and poisons.
Black on Black killings in America: 7,000 murders annually
According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011 there were 279,384 black murder victims, which means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks, resulting in the 94 percent figure. While blacks make-up only 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims.
So what’s the source of the problem? As Publius notes, “The problem is not among the black population as a whole; rather, it is due to a “small sub-culture that glorifies violence and lives and dies by the gun.” It is the gang culture, characterized by widespread criminality, tribalistic warfare, through-the-roof unemployment, extremely high rates of out-of-wedlock births (72.1 percent among blacks in 2010), widespread welfare dependency, and nihilistic art typified by “gangster rap.”
Black on White killings in America
- In 2011, of the 12,664 murder victims in America, 50% were Black and 46% were white.
- In 2011, 52% of the offenders in these murders were Black and 45% were white.
- One other stat: 90% of perpetrators were men.
White on Black killings in America
Intra-racial violence holds for whites. Eight-three percent of white murders in 2011 were within-race killings. This data tells us that murder, for the most part, in America does not come from racial hatred. Most killers kill within their race.
Suicide Among the Young in America
- Among persons aged 15 to 24, suicide ranks as the third leading cause of death in America. About 18 teens kill themselves daily or one Columbine High School rampage 24/7.
- In 2000, over three million youth seriously considered suicide in the USA and over one million attempted suicides. That equates to over 2,700 attempts daily or two attempts every 60 seconds.
As a nation, as a civilization, as a culture and as a multicultural society—we desperately need leadership that focuses on funding for thorough and successful education for whites, blacks, browns and all other children. We need to create jobs for our teens to give them worth, financial energy and moral direction. We need to stop the 71 percent of out-of-wedlock birth rates for African-Americans and white Americans if we hope to bring any kind of reasonable male-female balance to the rearing of our children
As it stands, those children face being brought up as savages rather than human beings. Right now, two black kids and a bi-racial kid face the rest of their lives behind bars. Right now, an entire community in Australia faces life without their outstanding son who trusted America enough to come and play baseball.
As a culture, and a country, America needs to stop wasting money, military and brute power in hundreds of countries around the world. We need to elect representatives who focus on making our country a place where teens grow up with ethics, morals, direction, homes, jobs and purpose—to live a fruitful and positive life. As it stands today with those three kids and hundreds of thousands like them, the violence toward women, the suicides and the crime rates—we fail miserably.
I think I am going to have a sickening gut ache for a very long time.
The really important news from Egypt is not the “martyrdom” of some hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood supporters and underage human shields set up for sacrifice by their leaders. It is not the brutality of the security forces fighting the emergence of a Khalifate within the state. It is the targeting of dozens of Christian churches, institutions and individuals all over Egypt by the MB, instigated by the leaders and eagerly carried out by the rank-and-file.
The Brotherhood has finally shown its terrorist character (a host of Western news editors excusing and implicitly justifying its acts as “reprisal attacks” notwithstanding). Attacking the helpless infidel has always been the essence of the MB’s scriptural sources of inspiration, the record of its predecessors through history, and the practice of its contemporary peers. As assorted jihadists fight Assad in Syria, the Christians suffer the most by far proportionate to their numbers. In Libya there were no Christians left after Gaddafy’s fall, so several Allied war cemeteries were vandalized. In Iraq, Saddam’s pious Shiite successors and their Sunni foes have effectively destroyed the two-million-strong Christian community, one of the oldest in the world.
At least the “Bulgarian Massacres” of 1878 and the Turkish genocide of a million-plus Armenians in 1915 and thereafter had a grim logic to it, following the Russian victories at Plevna and in the Caucasus respectively. The logic of the Brotherhood’s assault on Egypt’s Christians is to be found in chapter 9, verse 5, of the Kuran and in the example set by Muhammad and his early successors, the four “rightly guided” khalifs. That logic outweighs the pragmatic need not to dissipate forces and not to lose foreign support—not that the West cares. Had a Christian mob put to torch fifty-plus mosques and Islamic centers in Russia, say, that would have been the MSM lead story for days and weeks, never mind the dead. But the persecution, violence and bloodshed that is the daily lot of Christians in most majority-Muslim countries is under-reported or else grotesquely misrepresented.
As Wael Nawara, a former fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, pointed out in an excellent article last Wednesday, the question is not “Why was it so necessary to clear the sit-ins fully knowing that the blood toll was to be high,” but rather, “If it’s not too important, why did the Muslim Brothers’ react by setting the whole country on fire?” For six weeks, Nawara explains, the Rabia al-Adawiya encampment gradually expanded its borders, creeping to claim mile after mile of neighboring streets, including the highway which connects much of Cairo to the airport. The “sit-in” gradually morphed into a sprawling, fortified city-state with its own police force, complete with torture chambers and border guards. It came to manifest the MB’s “Parallel State,” and its conflict with the state of Egypt has now reached an existential phase “where for one to survive, the other had to go, at least ideologically and organizationally:
Over the past two and half years of the Egyptian revolution, several sit-ins were dispersed in Tahrir and other squares, with very few casualties, if any. It was never a big deal. But this was not just a sit-in, this was the flashpoint in an 85-year conflict between two states, the Muslim Brotherhood’s with its promised Caliphate state and the Egyptian national state, the oldest state history has known. Political factions can negotiate and split seats of power; people from different races, faiths and walks of life can coexist, but two states trying to govern the same people on the same piece of land cannot be together. This is the nature of the conflict now in Egypt and this is one explanation why the Brotherhood fights this battle as if it was Armageddon.
Three weeks ago Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the Egyptian army did not carry out a coup on July 3 but was only “restoring democracy.” (He retracted it with some waffle a day later.) That is nonsense. There had never been any democracy in Egypt so there is nothing to restore. The Muslim Brotherhood in general—as manifested by Morsi’s year in power—and its assault on the dwindling Coptic community in particular, are the living testimonial to the incompatibility of Islam with democracy as it is commonly understood in the postmodern West.
It cannot be otherwise. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his now famous lecture at the University of Regensburg six years ago, not to act reasonably—not to act with logos—is contrary to the nature of God. For a Muslim, God is absolutely transcendent, however; his will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Indeed, it is impossible to have total transcendence and self-limitation at the same time. Logos cannot be assumed in a supreme being that is so transcendent as to be devoid of personality. As then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger wrote in 1979, “the unrelated, unrelatable, absolutely one could not be a person. There is no such thing as a person in the categorical singular.” The result is a moral philosophy and a legal code that excludes the possibility of judgment based on any other source of authority but itself: the letter of revealed law and the precedent. Analogies thus derived stand above reason, conscience, or nature. A Muslim knows that a thing is right or not simply because Allah says so, or because his prophet has thus said or done. No other standard can be invoked.
The political consequences are crucial for all societies that derive their concept of authority from this image. Any notion of politics distinct from that implicit in complete submission to Allah is forbidden and sinful. A polity not based on Sharia is infidel ab initio; the notion of a society not based on the revealed will of Allah is haram. Any Western concept of justice, prudence, equality, or individual freedom—either Christian or derived from some deist-atheist construct—is incompatible with Islam. For Muslims to live together as sovereign individuals—the hallmark of today’s West—is literally unimaginable. It is beyond incompatible with the ideal of ummah, it is its diametrical opposite. The sovereignty of the individual is inconceivable. In his 1970 Islamic Declaration the Bosnian jihadist leader Alija Izetbegovic wrote that “A Muslim generally does not exist as an individual. If he wishes to live and survive as a Muslim, he must create an environment, a community, an order; change the world or be changed himself.”
The sovereignty of the people was accepted by the Muslim Brotherhood as a perfect tool to other ends—a step on the irreversible road to Sharia—but it was always seen by Morsi and his ilk as a sinful rebellion against the sovereignty of Allah. Hence their contempt and arrogance, hence their sophistry and duplicity. Only Allah creates our acts and enables us to act, not constitutions and assemblies and courts, which can and should be manipulated and twisted to suit his will.
The result goes beyond politics. An ikhwani a priori has no capacity for logical thought. Disjointed discourse is the norm. Conspiracy theorizing passes for serious discussion. This is the result of the theological and philosophical foundations of mainstream Sunnite Islam, as they were developed in the ninth and tenth centuries. They were tantamount to an “intellectual suicide” which remains at the root of the problem to this day. Since Allah is Pure Will, outside and above reason or nature. Literally everything is possible in a world in which there is no cause and effect, where man’s thoughts and actions are subsidiary and contingent, and Allah is the only actor.
For a self-confident West of yore, confronting such confused civilization would be a breeze. “Democracy” has changed the West, however, and the rot is proceeding apace. Roger Scruton thus finds the essence of the West in what he calls the “personal state,” which he approvingly describes as characterized by constitution, rule of law, and rotation of office-holders. As I noted last fall, such “society of individuals” is the bane of the West, the poison at its core. However defined, it is also incompatible with Islam. At one level the problem is Sharia. Its key concepts are “blasphemy” and “apostasy,” both incurring the death penalty. The whole edifice is based on the basic inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, free men and slaves.
More fundamentally, Western-style democracy—Scruton’s Personal State—is impossible in the Muslim world because the affairs of men do not belong to men in the universe not governed by natural laws. In this universe, “democracy” is reduced to the act of voting, on the one-way street to Sharia. It is an advanced form of mob rule. “Creation is not imprinted with reason,” Robert Reilly noted of Islamic voluntarism in The Closing of the Muslim Mind, and therefore cannot reflect what is not there. There is no rational order, there are only the second-to-second manifestation of God’s Will. By contrast, “democracy” presupposes an ordered universe, a Cosmos, with a detached clock-maker or an impersonal set of natural circumstances as its spiritus movens, with Man’s self-validating reason as the final check and balance.
The gap between these two Weltanschauungen is unbridgeable. An orthodox Muslim will see each act in itself as fitting an occasion rather than as a link in a chain of cause and consequence. It is blasphemous to assert that Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, without adding “insh’Allah!” There is no logos, no law, no freedom separate from His divine caprice. Submitting, and touching the carpet in the direction of Mecca, is the only freedom possible.
The implications are dire. On the one side the “democratic” West has divorced reason from faith and subsequently sank into moral, cultural and demographic self-destruction resulting from its embrace of an unnatural and unworkable political creed. Western decrepitude is allowing the Brotherhood and its ilk to continue divorcing faith from reason with centuries-long gusto. They are impervious now, and will always be, to the concept of democracy based on the tenet of individual freedom. In addition to demography and fanaticism, this immunity is their greatest asset in its expectation of a victory of world-historical proportions some time later this century.
The Egyptian generals sense that this world would be unpleasant in general, and dangerously uncertain for themselves personally. They have much more at stake than The New York Times editorialists and American politicians. Hence the Brotherhood’s comeuppance, well deserved and long overdue. May the state of emergency in Egypt last for another thirty years.