FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 2013
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Freedom vs. Safety

Freedom vs. Safety
Is safety worth giving
up your personal liberty?


Nerf society of mindless government slaves ...



Every day the federal government as well as state and local governments pass laws to make us a safer society. As they make society safer they are slowly chewing away at our rights, liberties, and our personal freedoms. Where is the balance? Is a safe nerf ball society worth giving up our freedoms for. At what point do we tell the government that we would rather die than to become mindless government slaves? Where is the line between where our right to choose is more important than the government's right to impose their standards on us. Even if it's for our own good?

We now have law regulating everything. We are forced to wear seat belts. We have to wear motorcycle helmets. Kids have to ride in the back seat. Smokers can't even smoke outside. We can't smoke a joint in the privacy of our own homes. Kids are expelled from schools for possession of nonprescription drugs. The government wants to regulate abortion, religion, sex, child discipline, marriage, and free speech. They want to control what you can post on the web, what your kids wear to school, where you can walk across the street, what you can watch in titty bars, what you can say at the office, where you can pray, where you can get high, who you have sex with, what kind of sex you have, what jokes you can tell, and when you can spank your children.

The Government is moving to regulate every aspect of our lives in order to protect us from ourselves. But is it worth our freedom and liberty?

The police can arrest you in your home without a warrant. The Division of Family Services can take your kids away. Teachers can no longer enforce discipline in the classroom. The courts tell you who you can have over as a lover and will take your kids away if you don't comply with their standards. If you spank your kids you can lose them for child abuse. If your spouse files for divorce, the courts take control of your property and divide it among the lawyers. They want to tell you where you can smoke outside. They can take your property away without ever charging you, let alone convicting you, of a crime. If the government want's your house, all they have to do is establish probable cause that your house was involved in a crime to institute a civil forfeiture proceeding. And all of this is "for the children" and to "enforce drug laws" to protect you from criminals.

Eliminating Civil Liberties Reduces Crime


Reducing crime is easy. All we have to do is to eliminate the Constitution and get rid of all these rights. If a person commits a crime then just shoot 'em. Why bother with a trial or a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Why bother spending tax money to put these people in jail? So we fry a few innocent people. We're eliminating crime and saving the taxpayer money. A bullet only costs a few cents. Wouldn't we all be safer if we just killed off all the lawbreakers and other undesirables? Wouldn't that cut down on crime?

You bet it would. It worked very well for Stalin and Hitler. In Russia, if you even thought about committing a crime you were killed. Russia under Stalin was a society of people who obeyed the law. But is that what we want here? I don't think so.

America isn't like World War II Russia. Not even close. But we are heading in that direction. Who would have thought that the police could come into your home without a warrant and haul you off to jail? Who would have thought that the government could take your house without convicting you of a crime? Who would have thought they could take your kids away without a conviction or a judge's order? If the police attack you, they charge you with a crime. You can go to jail for what other people do or fail to do. If you spank your kids, you go to jail. If your kids commit crimes or fail to attend school, you go to jail.

And this is supposed to be America, the home of the brave and the land of the free. But what does it mean to be free. To me, being free is the freedom to make my own decisions. I decide what I want to believe in. I decide if I want to risk my life by not wearing a seatbelt. I decide if I want to ruin my health by smoking cigarettes. (By the way, I'm an avid non-smoker.) I decide who I want to have sex with and how I will pay for it. I decide if I want my kids to sit in the front seat of my car or in the back end of my pickup truck. I decide if I want to get drunk or stoned. I decide if my kids need their butt swatted. I decide if I want to go to church and what church I want to go to. I decide if I want my kids on drugs and be free of courts or schools who try to force my kids to take drugs because the teachers are boring.

I want to be free to own a gun to protect myself and my family if I want to. I want to be free to Burn the Flag if the government gets too far out of line. I want to be free to say FUCK YOU on the Internet to those who want to tell me I can't say FUCK YOU. If I choose to live a lifestyle that will result in my burning in Hell forever, then that's my choice. Freedom is not a government who subjects me to their moral standards. I am a motherfucking asshole and I am comfortable with who I am. If the government doesn't like it they can shove it up their ass. I'm free. Get used to it.


Personal Protections we don't want


Is it a good idea to wear a seatbelt? Yes it is. Should the government do the research and determine how much safer it is? Yes they should. Should they require car manufacturers to install seatbelts in new cars? Yes. Should they be allowed to run ads and put up billboards suggesting I wear my seatbelt? Sure. Should they be allowed to force me to wear a seatbelt? No. That's my choice. If I choose to be stupid, that's my right.

One could argue that if I was injured because I didn't wear my seatbelt that society might incur some kind of expense. Yes, it might happen. But freedom has a price. Our soldiers have gone to war and fought and died so that we can remain free. Freedom always has a cost. But it's worth the price.

There's no doubt that when people are free that bad things are going to happen to some people. If people are allowed to make choices then some people will make bad choices. When you have freedom and liberty, you have the freedom and liberty to screw up. You have the freedom to destroy your life. But would you rather be a mind slave to the government and have them control your life, or perhaps destroy your life for you? After all, there's no IQ test to be elected to public office. There are a lot of laws that are just plain stupid. Laws that it's the duty of the people to break in defiance of the government.

I hate cigarette smokers. I think you have to be a total idiot to smoke. And I support laws that restrict smoking inside a building where non-smokers have to breathe it. But when you're outside where the ratio of air to fumes is low, you have to be reasonable and let the idiots smoke. Does it make them less of an idiot because they are allowed to smoke? No. But this is America where you have the freedom to be an idiot if that's what you choose to do.

Should a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to die for lack of a blood transfusion? Definitely. Should a person be able to choose when and how they will die? Absolutely. Yet Jack Kevorkian rots in jail for helping people die who chose to die and needed a doctor to make it happen. Jack Kevorkian is a Saint and should be honored as a hero. But re rots in jail because society hasn't faced the reality that we all die. It's my life. It's my choice. The government has no right to decide that for me.


Government of the People


America is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It exist only to serve us, not to rule use. They don't give us our rights. Our rights are ours. Anyone who would take away our freedoms and liberties is committing treason to the Constitution and is an enemy of the people and an enemy of our nation. The people are the fourth branch of government and superior to all other branches.

It is our duty as freedom loving people to rise up and slap down the government when it gets out of line. If the people don't stand up and assert their liberties, they don't deserve them.

We as a people can not sit back and assume that Uncle Sam is going to take care of us and that the machinery of government is just going to work without the supervision of the people. We as a people have a duty to watch the government and slap it down when it gets out of line. We as a people have to be worthy of deserving freedom. This is not something that was bestowed on us by the founding fathers. We have to maintain it and defend it. If we let freedom and liberty slip away a little at a time, then we are a people who doesn't deserve to be free. Just as the government has a duty to serve us, we as a people have a duty to defend our freedom and to understand and appreciate the rewards of being a free and open society. If we as a people fail in our duty to protect our freedom, then we no longer deserve to be a free people.


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” 

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.”  Freedom vs. Safety
Is safety worth giving
up your personal liberty?


Nerf society of mindless government slaves ...



Every day the federal government as well as state and local governments pass laws to make us a safer society. As they make society safer they are slowly chewing away at our rights, liberties, and our personal freedoms. Where is the balance? Is a safe nerf ball society worth giving up our freedoms for. At what point do we tell the government that we would rather die than to become mindless government slaves? Where is the line between where our right to choose is more important than the government's right to impose their standards on us. Even if it's for our own good?

We now have law regulating everything. We are forced to wear seat belts. We have to wear motorcycle helmets. Kids have to ride in the back seat. Smokers can't even smoke outside. We can't smoke a joint in the privacy of our own homes. Kids are expelled from schools for possession of nonprescription drugs. The government wants to regulate abortion, religion, sex, child discipline, marriage, and free speech. They want to control what you can post on the web, what your kids wear to school, where you can walk across the street, what you can watch in titty bars, what you can say at the office, where you can pray, where you can get high, who you have sex with, what kind of sex you have, what jokes you can tell, and when you can spank your children.

The Government is moving to regulate every aspect of our lives in order to protect us from ourselves. But is it worth our freedom and liberty?

The police can arrest you in your home without a warrant. The Division of Family Services can take your kids away. Teachers can no longer enforce discipline in the classroom. The courts tell you who you can have over as a lover and will take your kids away if you don't comply with their standards. If you spank your kids you can lose them for child abuse. If your spouse files for divorce, the courts take control of your property and divide it among the lawyers. They want to tell you where you can smoke outside. They can take your property away without ever charging you, let alone convicting you, of a crime. If the government want's your house, all they have to do is establish probable cause that your house was involved in a crime to institute a civil forfeiture proceeding. And all of this is "for the children" and to "enforce drug laws" to protect you from criminals.

Eliminating Civil Liberties Reduces Crime


Reducing crime is easy. All we have to do is to eliminate the Constitution and get rid of all these rights. If a person commits a crime then just shoot 'em. Why bother with a trial or a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Why bother spending tax money to put these people in jail? So we fry a few innocent people. We're eliminating crime and saving the taxpayer money. A bullet only costs a few cents. Wouldn't we all be safer if we just killed off all the lawbreakers and other undesirables? Wouldn't that cut down on crime?

You bet it would. It worked very well for Stalin and Hitler. In Russia, if you even thought about committing a crime you were killed. Russia under Stalin was a society of people who obeyed the law. But is that what we want here? I don't think so.

America isn't like World War II Russia. Not even close. But we are heading in that direction. Who would have thought that the police could come into your home without a warrant and haul you off to jail? Who would have thought that the government could take your house without convicting you of a crime? Who would have thought they could take your kids away without a conviction or a judge's order? If the police attack you, they charge you with a crime. You can go to jail for what other people do or fail to do. If you spank your kids, you go to jail. If your kids commit crimes or fail to attend school, you go to jail.

And this is supposed to be America, the home of the brave and the land of the free. But what does it mean to be free. To me, being free is the freedom to make my own decisions. I decide what I want to believe in. I decide if I want to risk my life by not wearing a seatbelt. I decide if I want to ruin my health by smoking cigarettes. (By the way, I'm an avid non-smoker.) I decide who I want to have sex with and how I will pay for it. I decide if I want my kids to sit in the front seat of my car or in the back end of my pickup truck. I decide if I want to get drunk or stoned. I decide if my kids need their butt swatted. I decide if I want to go to church and what church I want to go to. I decide if I want my kids on drugs and be free of courts or schools who try to force my kids to take drugs because the teachers are boring.

I want to be free to own a gun to protect myself and my family if I want to. I want to be free to Burn the Flag if the government gets too far out of line. I want to be free to say FUCK YOU on the Internet to those who want to tell me I can't say FUCK YOU. If I choose to live a lifestyle that will result in my burning in Hell forever, then that's my choice. Freedom is not a government who subjects me to their moral standards. I am a motherfucking asshole and I am comfortable with who I am. If the government doesn't like it they can shove it up their ass. I'm free. Get used to it.


Personal Protections we don't want


Is it a good idea to wear a seatbelt? Yes it is. Should the government do the research and determine how much safer it is? Yes they should. Should they require car manufacturers to install seatbelts in new cars? Yes. Should they be allowed to run ads and put up billboards suggesting I wear my seatbelt? Sure. Should they be allowed to force me to wear a seatbelt? No. That's my choice. If I choose to be stupid, that's my right.

One could argue that if I was injured because I didn't wear my seatbelt that society might incur some kind of expense. Yes, it might happen. But freedom has a price. Our soldiers have gone to war and fought and died so that we can remain free. Freedom always has a cost. But it's worth the price.

There's no doubt that when people are free that bad things are going to happen to some people. If people are allowed to make choices then some people will make bad choices. When you have freedom and liberty, you have the freedom and liberty to screw up. You have the freedom to destroy your life. But would you rather be a mind slave to the government and have them control your life, or perhaps destroy your life for you? After all, there's no IQ test to be elected to public office. There are a lot of laws that are just plain stupid. Laws that it's the duty of the people to break in defiance of the government.

I hate cigarette smokers. I think you have to be a total idiot to smoke. And I support laws that restrict smoking inside a building where non-smokers have to breathe it. But when you're outside where the ratio of air to fumes is low, you have to be reasonable and let the idiots smoke. Does it make them less of an idiot because they are allowed to smoke? No. But this is America where you have the freedom to be an idiot if that's what you choose to do.

Should a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to die for lack of a blood transfusion? Definitely. Should a person be able to choose when and how they will die? Absolutely. Yet Jack Kevorkian rots in jail for helping people die who chose to die and needed a doctor to make it happen. Jack Kevorkian is a Saint and should be honored as a hero. But re rots in jail because society hasn't faced the reality that we all die. It's my life. It's my choice. The government has no right to decide that for me.


Government of the People


America is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It exist only to serve us, not to rule use. They don't give us our rights. Our rights are ours. Anyone who would take away our freedoms and liberties is committing treason to the Constitution and is an enemy of the people and an enemy of our nation. The people are the fourth branch of government and superior to all other branches.

It is our duty as freedom loving people to rise up and slap down the government when it gets out of line. If the people don't stand up and assert their liberties, they don't deserve them.

We as a people can not sit back and assume that Uncle Sam is going to take care of us and that the machinery of government is just going to work without the supervision of the people. We as a people have a duty to watch the government and slap it down when it gets out of line. We as a people have to be worthy of deserving freedom. This is not something that was bestowed on us by the founding fathers. We have to maintain it and defend it. If we let freedom and liberty slip away a little at a time, then we are a people who doesn't deserve to be free. Just as the government has a duty to serve us, we as a people have a duty to defend our freedom and to understand and appreciate the rewards of being a free and open society. If we as a people fail in our duty to protect our freedom, then we no longer deserve to be a free people.


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” 

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” 

Solving America's Problems

Solving America's Problems



Because I make it a practice to point out what everybody else is doing badly, I thought for a change I would offer solutions or at least suggestions.

The problem with guns, as even Barack Obama would admit if you could water board him into telling the truth, has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens, everything to do with loons and thugs having access to weapons when, in a sane society, the only things those two groups would have access to are insane asylums and jails, respectively.

I venture that far less than one percent of all crimes committed with guns are committed by members of the NRA. Somehow, I just don’t see the inner city residents of Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and L.A., signing up to take gun safety classes or undergoing background checks.

As for all the violence taking place in gun-free zones, nobody should be too surprised. After all, even crazy people aren’t necessarily stupid. The only stupidity on display is that of those who think that posting a sign is enough to safeguard the public. Do these stoopnagels also believe that if you post fang-and- claw-free zones at the zoos and then throw open the cages, the lions and tigers will refrain from devouring the visitors?

The solution to the mass killings on school campuses and elsewhere is to have good guys standing guard. Most communities are full of retired cops, soldiers, sheriffs and deputies, who’d be only too happy to volunteer to protect their grandkids and yours.

Democrats don’t believe that if you own a gun, even if it’s been legally purchased and licensed, you can possibly be a law-abiding citizen. On the other hand, they resent it if you refer to the folks who sneak into America as illegal aliens.

As an email that had gone viral summed it up, “If we don’t need guns because we have cops, then we shouldn’t need fire extinguishers because we have firemen.”

A cartoon someone sent me showed Obama addressing the Ayatollah Khamenei, assuring him that “If you like your nuclear program, you can keep your nuclear program.”

An alternative would have Obama telling Vladimir Putin: “If you like Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, you can keep Crimea, Ukraine and Syria.”

Putin sends planes, missiles and ground troops, into the Middle East, and this administration claims he’s acting unprofessionally. I would humbly disagree. I would say the former head of the notorious KGB and the current heir to Stalin’s bloody boots is acting exactly like a professional despot, whereas Obama is flaunting his amateur status on the world stage.

Obama might yearn to go 10 rounds with Putin in a San Francisco bathhouse, but is terrified of confronting Russia’s newest czar anywhere else. In seven years, he has succeeded in making the U.S. the laughingstock of the world, a world in which our enemies taunt us and our former allies distrust us. It’s a topsy-turvy world when not only Iran seeks advice and counsel from Russia, but Israel and Saudi Arabia do the same. Can anyone even imagine such a surrealistic scenario if Reagan were in the White House; or Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson or even, for that matter, little Lindsey Graham?

If your hometown newspaper is anything like mine, which happens to be the L.A. Times, it is very possible that they have also instituted a policy of refusing to publish letters to the editor that question man-made climate change. In the case of the Times, I know from personal experience that they are equally reluctant to print letters that question the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s foreign policy, Barbara Boxer’s intelligence and Jerry Brown’s sanity.

My own solution was to stop subscribing, and I suggest that you follow suit with your own local rag. The fact is that these trashy papers need you far more than you need them. So why on earth are you supporting a publication that not only holds conservatives in contempt, but that even parakeets whine about when they find it being used to carpet their apartments?

At the University of Pennsylvania, when a professor called Dr. Ben Carson a coon, Carson’s campaign manager complained to the college president. Not too surprisingly, he was told that the professor was merely practicing her academic freedom. I’m not sure if Carson’s aide was shocked, but I wasn’t. For years now, the so-called tolerant, colorblind, Left has granted itself dispensation to label black conservatives Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas, so why not coons?

Because Rep. Kevin McCarthy was stupid enough to sabotage Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi committee by suggesting it existed for no other reason than to scuttle Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, the Democrats are quoting him even more often than Donald Trump quotes himself. But the fact of the matter is that Joe Biden would make a far stronger candidate. He’s a dummy, but he doesn’t have scandals trailing from his shoe bottoms the way she has. Besides, the Gowdy committee has been around for months, but it’s only been since we’ve been hearing about all the national security lapses connected to her private server that her poll numbers have tanked. So, good try, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but no cigar.

In case you missed the news, Robert Redford, who traded in his leading man status years ago in order to be a megaphone for the Left, has another stink bomb on his resume. In a film written and directed by an heir to the Vanderbilt fortune, Redford re-establishes his liberal creds by appearing as Dan Rather in a movie titled “Truth,” a highly fictionalized homage to the disgraced former anchor of the CBS news.

If you recall, in 2004, hoping to get George W. Bush un-elected, Rather and his producer Mary Mapes fell hook, line and sinker, for a clumsily forged document purporting to prove that young Bush had gone AWOL from his National Guard unit.

Although Rather eventually went on television to apologize for his role in promoting the hoax, he then turned around and sued the network for about $70 million for removing his royal rump from the anchor chair. A judge tossed his claim out of court claiming it lacked merit and that it was, legally speaking, a carload of poop.

I’m not expecting the movie to generate much business at the box office, but my fear is that the majority of those in the audience will be gullible millennials, who just might be the most ignorant generation in American history. Don’t take my word for it. Just watch them embarrass themselves on Bill O'Reilly’s Watter’s World segment or those man-on-the street bits we see on late night TV, where one college student after another is unable to name the vice-president, tell the interviewer how many U.S. senators there are or even identify the country we fought in the American Revolution.

Just for the heck of it, I looked up “millennials” in the dictionary. I naturally assumed it meant brainless. It turned out to mean people born around the turn of the century, but I’ll go with my definition.

Finally, in response to an email from a reader who fears for America’s future, I wrote: “I would gladly concede control of Congress to the Democrats if I could control the media and public education. In a single generation, I could clean up the mess the Left has created.”

It’s not an empty boast. After all, the formula worked like a charm for the liberals, who in 25 short years took us from Ronald Wilson Reagan’s shining city on the hill to the urban nightmare of Barack Hussein Obama’s Baltimore.


Burt Prelutsky
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts Solving America's Problems



Because I make it a practice to point out what everybody else is doing badly, I thought for a change I would offer solutions or at least suggestions.

The problem with guns, as even Barack Obama would admit if you could water board him into telling the truth, has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens, everything to do with loons and thugs having access to weapons when, in a sane society, the only things those two groups would have access to are insane asylums and jails, respectively.

I venture that far less than one percent of all crimes committed with guns are committed by members of the NRA. Somehow, I just don’t see the inner city residents of Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and L.A., signing up to take gun safety classes or undergoing background checks.

As for all the violence taking place in gun-free zones, nobody should be too surprised. After all, even crazy people aren’t necessarily stupid. The only stupidity on display is that of those who think that posting a sign is enough to safeguard the public. Do these stoopnagels also believe that if you post fang-and- claw-free zones at the zoos and then throw open the cages, the lions and tigers will refrain from devouring the visitors?

The solution to the mass killings on school campuses and elsewhere is to have good guys standing guard. Most communities are full of retired cops, soldiers, sheriffs and deputies, who’d be only too happy to volunteer to protect their grandkids and yours.

Democrats don’t believe that if you own a gun, even if it’s been legally purchased and licensed, you can possibly be a law-abiding citizen. On the other hand, they resent it if you refer to the folks who sneak into America as illegal aliens.

As an email that had gone viral summed it up, “If we don’t need guns because we have cops, then we shouldn’t need fire extinguishers because we have firemen.”

A cartoon someone sent me showed Obama addressing the Ayatollah Khamenei, assuring him that “If you like your nuclear program, you can keep your nuclear program.”

An alternative would have Obama telling Vladimir Putin: “If you like Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, you can keep Crimea, Ukraine and Syria.”

Putin sends planes, missiles and ground troops, into the Middle East, and this administration claims he’s acting unprofessionally. I would humbly disagree. I would say the former head of the notorious KGB and the current heir to Stalin’s bloody boots is acting exactly like a professional despot, whereas Obama is flaunting his amateur status on the world stage.

Obama might yearn to go 10 rounds with Putin in a San Francisco bathhouse, but is terrified of confronting Russia’s newest czar anywhere else. In seven years, he has succeeded in making the U.S. the laughingstock of the world, a world in which our enemies taunt us and our former allies distrust us. It’s a topsy-turvy world when not only Iran seeks advice and counsel from Russia, but Israel and Saudi Arabia do the same. Can anyone even imagine such a surrealistic scenario if Reagan were in the White House; or Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson or even, for that matter, little Lindsey Graham?

If your hometown newspaper is anything like mine, which happens to be the L.A. Times, it is very possible that they have also instituted a policy of refusing to publish letters to the editor that question man-made climate change. In the case of the Times, I know from personal experience that they are equally reluctant to print letters that question the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s foreign policy, Barbara Boxer’s intelligence and Jerry Brown’s sanity.

My own solution was to stop subscribing, and I suggest that you follow suit with your own local rag. The fact is that these trashy papers need you far more than you need them. So why on earth are you supporting a publication that not only holds conservatives in contempt, but that even parakeets whine about when they find it being used to carpet their apartments?

At the University of Pennsylvania, when a professor called Dr. Ben Carson a coon, Carson’s campaign manager complained to the college president. Not too surprisingly, he was told that the professor was merely practicing her academic freedom. I’m not sure if Carson’s aide was shocked, but I wasn’t. For years now, the so-called tolerant, colorblind, Left has granted itself dispensation to label black conservatives Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas, so why not coons?

Because Rep. Kevin McCarthy was stupid enough to sabotage Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi committee by suggesting it existed for no other reason than to scuttle Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, the Democrats are quoting him even more often than Donald Trump quotes himself. But the fact of the matter is that Joe Biden would make a far stronger candidate. He’s a dummy, but he doesn’t have scandals trailing from his shoe bottoms the way she has. Besides, the Gowdy committee has been around for months, but it’s only been since we’ve been hearing about all the national security lapses connected to her private server that her poll numbers have tanked. So, good try, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but no cigar.

In case you missed the news, Robert Redford, who traded in his leading man status years ago in order to be a megaphone for the Left, has another stink bomb on his resume. In a film written and directed by an heir to the Vanderbilt fortune, Redford re-establishes his liberal creds by appearing as Dan Rather in a movie titled “Truth,” a highly fictionalized homage to the disgraced former anchor of the CBS news.

If you recall, in 2004, hoping to get George W. Bush un-elected, Rather and his producer Mary Mapes fell hook, line and sinker, for a clumsily forged document purporting to prove that young Bush had gone AWOL from his National Guard unit.

Although Rather eventually went on television to apologize for his role in promoting the hoax, he then turned around and sued the network for about $70 million for removing his royal rump from the anchor chair. A judge tossed his claim out of court claiming it lacked merit and that it was, legally speaking, a carload of poop.

I’m not expecting the movie to generate much business at the box office, but my fear is that the majority of those in the audience will be gullible millennials, who just might be the most ignorant generation in American history. Don’t take my word for it. Just watch them embarrass themselves on Bill O'Reilly’s Watter’s World segment or those man-on-the street bits we see on late night TV, where one college student after another is unable to name the vice-president, tell the interviewer how many U.S. senators there are or even identify the country we fought in the American Revolution.

Just for the heck of it, I looked up “millennials” in the dictionary. I naturally assumed it meant brainless. It turned out to mean people born around the turn of the century, but I’ll go with my definition.

Finally, in response to an email from a reader who fears for America’s future, I wrote: “I would gladly concede control of Congress to the Democrats if I could control the media and public education. In a single generation, I could clean up the mess the Left has created.”

It’s not an empty boast. After all, the formula worked like a charm for the liberals, who in 25 short years took us from Ronald Wilson Reagan’s shining city on the hill to the urban nightmare of Barack Hussein Obama’s Baltimore.


Burt Prelutsky
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts

Eco-apocalypse Indonesia Is Burning. So Why Is The World Looking Away?

A great tract of the Earth is on fire. It looks as you might imagine hell to be. - It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st Century – so far. -

Eco-apocalypse
Indonesia Is Burning. So Why Is The World Looking Away?


I’ve often wondered how the media would respond when eco-apocalypse struck. I pictured the news programmes producing brief, sensational reports, while failing to explain why it was happening or how it might be stopped. Then they would ask their financial correspondents how the disaster affected share prices, before turning to the sport. As you can probably tell, I don’t have an ocean of faith in the industry for which I work.

What I did not expect was that they would ignore it.

A great tract of the Earth is on fire. It looks as you might imagine hell to be. The air has turned ochre: visibility in some cities has been reduced to 30 metres. Children are being prepared for evacuation in warships; already some have choked to death. Species are going up in smoke at an untold rate. It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st Century – so far.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/indonesia-readies-shelter-ships-as-haze-last-resort-after-evacuateus-hits-twitter/

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/09/children-are-dying-from-respiratory-ailments-as-haze-blankets-sumatra/

And the media? It’s talking about the dress the Duchess of Cambridge wore to the James Bond premiere, Donald Trump’s idiocy du jour and who got eliminated from the Halloween episode of Dancing with the Stars. The great debate of the week, dominating the news across much of the world? Sausages: are they really so bad for your health?

What I’m discussing is a barbeque on a different scale. Fire is raging across the 5000-kilometre length of Indonesia. It is surely, on any objective assessment, more important than anything else taking place today. And it shouldn’t require a columnist, writing in the middle of a newspaper, to say so. It should be on everyone’s front page.

It is hard to convey the scale of this inferno, but here’s a comparison that might help: it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. In three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/how-indonesias-staggering-fires-are-making-global-warming-worse/

http://blog.globalforestwatch.org/2015/10/indonesias-fire-outbreaks-producing-more-daily-emissions-than-entire-u-s-economy/

But that doesn’t really capture it. This catastrophe cannot be measured only in parts per million. The fires are destroying treasures as precious and irreplaceable as the archaeological remains being levelled by Isis. Orang utans, clouded leopards, sun bears, gibbons, the Sumatran rhinoceros and Sumatran tiger, these are among the threatened species being driven from much of their range by the flames. But there are thousands, perhaps millions, more.

One of the burning islands is West Papua, a nation that has been illegally occupied by Indonesia since 1963. I spent six months there when I was 24, investigating some of the factors that have led to the current disaster. At the time, it was a wonderland, rich with endemic species in every swamp and valley. Who knows how many of those have vanished in the past few weeks? This week I have pored and wept over photos of places I loved, that have now been reduced to ash.
http://www.monbiot.com/books/poisoned-arrows/

Nor do the greenhouse gas emissions capture the impact on the people of these lands. After the last great conflagration, in 1997, there was a missing cohort in Indonesia of 15,000 children under the age of three, attributed to air pollution. This, it seems, is worse. The surgical masks being distributed across the nation will do almost nothing to protect those living in a sunless smog. Members of parliament in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) have had to wear face masks during debates. The chamber is so foggy that they must have difficulty recognising each other.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14011

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/kalimantan-politicians-wear-facemasks-inside-parliament-as-palangkaraya-suffers-in-silence/

It’s not just the trees that are burning. It is the land itself. Much of the forest sits on great domes of peat. When the fires penetrate the earth, they smoulder for weeks, sometimes months, releasing clouds of methane, carbon monoxide, ozone and exotic gases like ammonium cyanide. The plumes extend for hundreds of miles, causing diplomatic conflicts with neighbouring countries.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/singapore-takes-legal-action-against-5-indonesian-companies-over-haze/

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/malaysia-pm-turns-up-heat-on-indonesia-as-australian-firm-faces-fires-probe/

Why is this happening? Indonesia’s forests have been fragmented for decades by timber and farming companies. Canals have been cut through the peat to drain and dry it. Plantation companies move in to destroy what remains of the forest to plant monocultures of pulpwood, timber and palm oil. The easiest way to clear the land is to torch it. Every year, this causes disasters. But in an extreme El Niño year like this one, we have a perfect formula for environmental catastrophe.

The current president, Joko Widodo, is – or wants to be – a democrat. But he presides over a nation in which fascism and corruption flourish. As Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary The Act of Killing shows, leaders of the death squads that helped murder around a million people during Suharto’s terror in the 1960s, with the approval of the West, have since prospered through other forms of organised crime, including illegal deforestation.http://theactofkilling.co.uk/

They are supported by a paramilitary organisation with three million members, called Pancasila Youth. With its orange camo-print uniforms, scarlet berets, sentimental gatherings and schmaltzy music, it looks like a fascist militia as imagined by JG Ballard. There has been no truth, no reconciliation; the mass killers are still greeted as heroes and feted on television. In some places, especially West Papua, the political murders continue.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/03/indonesias-act-denial

Those who commit crimes against humanity don’t hesitate to commit crimes against nature. Though Joko Widodo seems to want to stop the burning, his reach is limited. His government’s policies are contradictory: among them are new subsidies for palm oil production that make further burning almost inevitable. Some plantation companies, prompted by their customers, have promised to stop destroying the rainforest. Government officials have responded angrily, arguing that such restraint impedes the country’s development. That smoke blotting out the nation, which has already cost it some $30 billion? That, apparently, is development.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/09/indonesian-officials-resist-movement-to-end-deforestation-for-palm-oil/

http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/opinion/erik-meijaard-indonesias-fire-crisis-biggest-environmental-crime-21st-century/

Our leverage is weak, but there are some things we can do. Some companies using palm oil have made visible efforts to reform their supply chains; but others seem to move slowly and opaquely. Starbucks, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Unilever are examples. Don’t buy their products until they change.https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rainforestactionnetwork/pages/5884/attachments/original/1435772500/RAN_TESTING_COMMITMENTS_2015_FINAL.pdf?1435772500

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/25/starbucks-palm-oil-campaign-2015-sumofus-consumers-deforestation-commitments

http://www.ran.org/sf20scorecard

On Monday, Widodo was in Washington, meeting Barack Obama. Obama, the official communiqué recorded, “welcomed President Widodo’s recent policy actions to combat and prevent forest fires”. The ecopalypse taking place as they conferred, that makes a mockery of these commitments, wasn’t mentioned.https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/26/joint-statement-united-states-america-and-republic-indonesia

Governments ignore issues when the media ignores them. And the media ignores them because … well there’s a question with a thousand answers, many of which involve power. But one reason is the complete failure of perspective in a deskilled industry dominated by corporate press releases, photo ops and fashion shoots, where everyone seems to be waiting for everyone else to take a lead. The media makes a collective non-decision to treat this catastrophe as a non-issue, and we all carry on as if it’s not happening.

At the climate summit in Paris in December, the media, trapped within the intergovernmental bubble of abstract diplomacy and manufactured drama, will cover the negotiations almost without reference to what is happening elsewhere. The talks will be removed to a realm with which we have no moral contact. And, when the circus moves on, the silence will resume. Is there any other industry that serves its customers so badly?




 George Monbiot

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts A great tract of the Earth is on fire. It looks as you might imagine hell to be. - It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st Century – so far. -

Eco-apocalypse
Indonesia Is Burning. So Why Is The World Looking Away?


I’ve often wondered how the media would respond when eco-apocalypse struck. I pictured the news programmes producing brief, sensational reports, while failing to explain why it was happening or how it might be stopped. Then they would ask their financial correspondents how the disaster affected share prices, before turning to the sport. As you can probably tell, I don’t have an ocean of faith in the industry for which I work.

What I did not expect was that they would ignore it.

A great tract of the Earth is on fire. It looks as you might imagine hell to be. The air has turned ochre: visibility in some cities has been reduced to 30 metres. Children are being prepared for evacuation in warships; already some have choked to death. Species are going up in smoke at an untold rate. It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st Century – so far.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/indonesia-readies-shelter-ships-as-haze-last-resort-after-evacuateus-hits-twitter/

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/09/children-are-dying-from-respiratory-ailments-as-haze-blankets-sumatra/

And the media? It’s talking about the dress the Duchess of Cambridge wore to the James Bond premiere, Donald Trump’s idiocy du jour and who got eliminated from the Halloween episode of Dancing with the Stars. The great debate of the week, dominating the news across much of the world? Sausages: are they really so bad for your health?

What I’m discussing is a barbeque on a different scale. Fire is raging across the 5000-kilometre length of Indonesia. It is surely, on any objective assessment, more important than anything else taking place today. And it shouldn’t require a columnist, writing in the middle of a newspaper, to say so. It should be on everyone’s front page.

It is hard to convey the scale of this inferno, but here’s a comparison that might help: it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. In three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/how-indonesias-staggering-fires-are-making-global-warming-worse/

http://blog.globalforestwatch.org/2015/10/indonesias-fire-outbreaks-producing-more-daily-emissions-than-entire-u-s-economy/

But that doesn’t really capture it. This catastrophe cannot be measured only in parts per million. The fires are destroying treasures as precious and irreplaceable as the archaeological remains being levelled by Isis. Orang utans, clouded leopards, sun bears, gibbons, the Sumatran rhinoceros and Sumatran tiger, these are among the threatened species being driven from much of their range by the flames. But there are thousands, perhaps millions, more.

One of the burning islands is West Papua, a nation that has been illegally occupied by Indonesia since 1963. I spent six months there when I was 24, investigating some of the factors that have led to the current disaster. At the time, it was a wonderland, rich with endemic species in every swamp and valley. Who knows how many of those have vanished in the past few weeks? This week I have pored and wept over photos of places I loved, that have now been reduced to ash.
http://www.monbiot.com/books/poisoned-arrows/

Nor do the greenhouse gas emissions capture the impact on the people of these lands. After the last great conflagration, in 1997, there was a missing cohort in Indonesia of 15,000 children under the age of three, attributed to air pollution. This, it seems, is worse. The surgical masks being distributed across the nation will do almost nothing to protect those living in a sunless smog. Members of parliament in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) have had to wear face masks during debates. The chamber is so foggy that they must have difficulty recognising each other.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14011

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/kalimantan-politicians-wear-facemasks-inside-parliament-as-palangkaraya-suffers-in-silence/

It’s not just the trees that are burning. It is the land itself. Much of the forest sits on great domes of peat. When the fires penetrate the earth, they smoulder for weeks, sometimes months, releasing clouds of methane, carbon monoxide, ozone and exotic gases like ammonium cyanide. The plumes extend for hundreds of miles, causing diplomatic conflicts with neighbouring countries.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/singapore-takes-legal-action-against-5-indonesian-companies-over-haze/

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/malaysia-pm-turns-up-heat-on-indonesia-as-australian-firm-faces-fires-probe/

Why is this happening? Indonesia’s forests have been fragmented for decades by timber and farming companies. Canals have been cut through the peat to drain and dry it. Plantation companies move in to destroy what remains of the forest to plant monocultures of pulpwood, timber and palm oil. The easiest way to clear the land is to torch it. Every year, this causes disasters. But in an extreme El Niño year like this one, we have a perfect formula for environmental catastrophe.

The current president, Joko Widodo, is – or wants to be – a democrat. But he presides over a nation in which fascism and corruption flourish. As Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary The Act of Killing shows, leaders of the death squads that helped murder around a million people during Suharto’s terror in the 1960s, with the approval of the West, have since prospered through other forms of organised crime, including illegal deforestation.http://theactofkilling.co.uk/

They are supported by a paramilitary organisation with three million members, called Pancasila Youth. With its orange camo-print uniforms, scarlet berets, sentimental gatherings and schmaltzy music, it looks like a fascist militia as imagined by JG Ballard. There has been no truth, no reconciliation; the mass killers are still greeted as heroes and feted on television. In some places, especially West Papua, the political murders continue.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/03/indonesias-act-denial

Those who commit crimes against humanity don’t hesitate to commit crimes against nature. Though Joko Widodo seems to want to stop the burning, his reach is limited. His government’s policies are contradictory: among them are new subsidies for palm oil production that make further burning almost inevitable. Some plantation companies, prompted by their customers, have promised to stop destroying the rainforest. Government officials have responded angrily, arguing that such restraint impedes the country’s development. That smoke blotting out the nation, which has already cost it some $30 billion? That, apparently, is development.
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/09/indonesian-officials-resist-movement-to-end-deforestation-for-palm-oil/

http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/opinion/erik-meijaard-indonesias-fire-crisis-biggest-environmental-crime-21st-century/

Our leverage is weak, but there are some things we can do. Some companies using palm oil have made visible efforts to reform their supply chains; but others seem to move slowly and opaquely. Starbucks, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Unilever are examples. Don’t buy their products until they change.https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rainforestactionnetwork/pages/5884/attachments/original/1435772500/RAN_TESTING_COMMITMENTS_2015_FINAL.pdf?1435772500

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/25/starbucks-palm-oil-campaign-2015-sumofus-consumers-deforestation-commitments

http://www.ran.org/sf20scorecard

On Monday, Widodo was in Washington, meeting Barack Obama. Obama, the official communiqué recorded, “welcomed President Widodo’s recent policy actions to combat and prevent forest fires”. The ecopalypse taking place as they conferred, that makes a mockery of these commitments, wasn’t mentioned.https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/26/joint-statement-united-states-america-and-republic-indonesia

Governments ignore issues when the media ignores them. And the media ignores them because … well there’s a question with a thousand answers, many of which involve power. But one reason is the complete failure of perspective in a deskilled industry dominated by corporate press releases, photo ops and fashion shoots, where everyone seems to be waiting for everyone else to take a lead. The media makes a collective non-decision to treat this catastrophe as a non-issue, and we all carry on as if it’s not happening.

At the climate summit in Paris in December, the media, trapped within the intergovernmental bubble of abstract diplomacy and manufactured drama, will cover the negotiations almost without reference to what is happening elsewhere. The talks will be removed to a realm with which we have no moral contact. And, when the circus moves on, the silence will resume. Is there any other industry that serves its customers so badly?




 George Monbiot

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts

The Untold History of The US - Bush & Obama Age of Terror

How the Bush administration manipulated terror warnings on Americans to fulfill their political motives.

The Untold History of The US - Bush & Obama Age of Terror



By Oliver Stone

How the Bush administration tried to manipulate terror warnings on Americans to fulfill their political motives.

Posted October 30, 2015






Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.”  How the Bush administration manipulated terror warnings on Americans to fulfill their political motives.

The Untold History of The US - Bush & Obama Age of Terror



By Oliver Stone

How the Bush administration tried to manipulate terror warnings on Americans to fulfill their political motives.

Posted October 30, 2015






Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.” 

The Demobilization of the American People and the Spectacle of Election 2016

The desire to take the American public out of the “of the people, by the people, for the people” business can minimally be traced back to the Vietnam War -

The Demobilization of the American People and the Spectacle of Election 2016



You may not know it, but you’re living in a futuristic science fiction novel. And that’s a fact.  If you were to read about our American world in such a novel, you would be amazed by its strangeness.  Since you exist right smack in the middle of it, it seems like normal life (Donald Trump and Ben Carson aside).  But make no bones about it, so far this has been a bizarre American century.

Let me start with one of the odder moments we’ve lived through and give it the attention it’s always deserved.  If you follow my train of thought and the history it leads us into, I guarantee you that you’ll end up back exactly where we are -- in the midst of the strangest presidential campaign in our history.

To get a full frontal sense of what that means, however, let’s return to late September 2001.  I’m sure you remember that moment, just over two weeks after those World Trade Center towers came down and part of the Pentagon was destroyed, leaving a jangled secretary of defense instructing his aides, “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/

I couldn’t resist sticking in that classic Donald Rumsfeld line, but I leave it to others to deal with Saddam Hussein, those fictional weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq, and everything that’s happened since, including the establishment of a terror “caliphate” by a crew of Islamic extremists brought together in American military prison camps -- all of which you wouldn’t believe if it were part of a sci-fi novel. The damn thing would make Planet of the Apeslook like outright realism.http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/9301/%20jim_lobe_on_timing_the_cheney_nuclear_drumbeat

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Instead, try to recall the screaming headlines that labeled the 9/11 attacks “the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century” or “a new Day of Infamy,” and the attackers “the kamikazes of the twenty-first century.”  Remember the moment when President George W. Bush, bullhorn in hand, stepped onto the rubble at "Ground Zero" in New York, draped his arm around a fireman, and swore payback in the name of the American people, as members of an impromptu crowd shouted out things like “Go get ‘em, George!”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/9_11_an_explosion_out_of_the_towering_inferno_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE



“I can hear you! I can hear you!” he responded. “The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

USA!  USA!  USA!” chanted the crowd.

Then, on September 20th, addressing Congress, Bush added, “Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941.”  By then, he was already talking about "our war on terror."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/9_11_an_explosion_out_of_the_towering_inferno
_
Now, hop ahead to that long-forgotten moment when he would finally reveal just how a twenty-first-century American president should rally and mobilize the American people in the name of the ultimate in collective danger.  As CNN put it at the time, “President Bush... urged Americans to travel, spend, and enjoy life.” His actual words were:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/smn.26.html

“And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry and to tell the traveling public, get on board, do your business around the country, fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Go down to Disney World in Florida, take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed.”

So we went to war in Afghanistan and later Iraq to rebuild faith in flying.  Though that got little attention at the time, tell me it isn’t a detail out of some sci-fi novel.  Or put another way, as far as the Bush administration was then concerned, Rosie the Riveter was moldering in her grave and the model American for mobilizing a democratic nation in time of war was Rosie the Frequent Flyer.  It turned out not to be winter in Valley Forge, but eternal summer in Orlando.  From then on, as the Bush administration planned its version of revenge-cum-global-domination, the message it sent to the citizenry was: go about your business and leave the dirty work to us.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/We_Can_Do_It!.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter

Disney World opened in 1971, but for a moment imagine that it had been in existence in 1863 and that, more than seven score years ago, facing a country in the midst of a terrible civil war, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg had said this:http://www.d.umn.edu/~rmaclin/gettysburg-address.html

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom at Disney World -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish for lack of vacations in Florida.”

Or imagine that, in response to that “day of infamy,” the Pearl Harbor of the twentieth century, Franklin Roosevelt had gone before Congress and, in an address to the nation, had said:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/franklindroosevelt/a/Day-Of-Infamy-Speech.htm

“Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our airlines, with the unbounding determination of our people to visit Disney World, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.”

If those are absurdities, then so is twenty-first-century America.  By late September 2001, though no one would have put it that way, the demobilization of the American people had become a crucial aspect of Washington’s way of life.  The thought that Americans might be called upon to sacrifice in any way in a time of peril had gone with the wind.  Any newly minted version of the classic “don’t tread on me” flag of the revolutionary war era would have had to read: “don’t bother them.”

The Spectacle of War


The desire to take the American public out of the “of the people, by the people, for the people” business can minimally be traced back to the Vietnam War, to the moment when a citizen’s army began voting with its feet and antiwar sentiment grew to startling proportions not just on the home front, but inside a military in the field.  It was then that the high command began to fear the actual disintegration of the U.S. Army. https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html

Not surprisingly, there was a deep desire never to repeat such an experience.  (No more Vietnams!  No more antiwar movements!)  As a result, on January 27, 1973, with a stroke of the pen, President Richard Nixon abolished the draft, and so the citizen’s army.  With it went the sense that Americans had an obligation to serve their country in time of war (and peace).
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/01/us-military-draft-ends-jan-27-1973-072085

From that moment on, the urge to demobilize the American people and send them to Disney World would only grow.  First, they were to be removed from all imaginable aspects of war making.  Later, the same principle would be applied to the processes of government and to democracy itself.  In this context, for instance, you could write a history of the monstrous growth of secrecy and surveillance as twin deities of the American state: the urge to keep ever more information from the citizenry and to see ever more of what those citizens were doing in their own private time.  Both should be considered demobilizing trends.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175570/tomgram:_engelhardt,_the_national_security_complex_and_you/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175713/tomgram:_engelhardt,_you_are_our_secret/

This twin process y has a long history in the U.S., as any biography of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover would indicate.  Still, the expansion of secrecy and surveillance in this century has been a stunning development, as ever-larger parts of the national security state and the military (especially its 70,000-strong Special Operations forces) fell into the shadows.  In these years, American “safety” and “security” were redefined in terms of a citizen’s need not to know.  Only bathed in ignorance, were we safest from the danger that mattered most (Islamic terrorism -- a threat of microscopic proportions in the continental United States).
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175945/tomgram:_nick_turse,_a_shadow_war_in_150_countries/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175904/tomgram:_engelhardt,_inside_the_american_terrordome

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175901/tomgram:_engelhardt,_entering_the_intelligence_labyrinth/
As the American people were demobilized from war and left, in the post-9/11 era, with the single duty of eternally thanking and praising our "warriors” (or our "wounded warriors”), war itself was being transformed into a new kind of American entertainment spectacle.  In the 1980s, in response to the Vietnam experience, the Pentagon began to take responsibility not just for making war but for producing it.  Initially, in the invasions of Grenada and Panama, this largely meant sidelining the media, which many U.S. commanders still blamed for defeat in Vietnam.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175912/tomgram:_rory_fanning,_why_do_we_keep_thanking_the_troops/

By the First Gulf War of 1991, however, the Pentagon was prepared to produce a weeks-long televised extravaganza, which would enter the living rooms of increasingly demobilized Americans as a riveting show.  It would have its own snazzy graphics, logos, background music, and special effects (including nose-cone shots of targets obliterated).  In addition, retired military men were brought in to do Monday Night Football-style play-by-play and color commentary on the fighting in progress.  In this new version of war, there were to be no rebellious troops, no body bags, no body counts, no rogue reporters, and above all no antiwar movement.  In other words, the Gulf War was to be the anti-Vietnam. And it seemed to work... briefly.

Unfortunately for the first Bush administration, Saddam Hussein remained in power in Baghdad, the carefully staged post-war “victory” parades faded fast, the major networks lost ad money on the Pentagon’s show, and the ratings for war as entertainment sank.  More than a decade later, the second Bush administration, again eager not to repeat Vietnam and intent on sidelining the American public while it invaded and occupied Iraq, did it all over again.

movThis time, the Pentagon sent reporters to “boot camp,” “embedded” them with advancing units, built a quarter-million-dollar ie-style set for planned briefings in Doha, Qatar, and launched its invasion with “decapitation strikes” over Baghdad that lit the televised skies of the Iraqi capital an eerie green on TVs across America.  This spectacle of war, American-style, turned out to have a distinctly Disney-esque aura to it.  (Typically, however, those strikes produced scores of dead Iraqis, but managed to “decapitate” not a single targeted Iraqi leader from Saddam Hussein on down.)  That spectacle, replete with the usual music, logos, special effects, and those retired generals-cum-commentators -- this time even more tightly organized by the Pentagon -- turned out again to have a remarkably brief half-life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/international/middleeast/18MEDI.html?pagewanted=print

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/embedistan-reporting-with-or-without-the-military/

http://www.hrw.org/news/2003/12/12/us-hundreds-civilian-deaths-iraq-were-preventable

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/world/struggle-for-iraq-intelligence-errors-are-seen-early-attacks-iraqi-leaders.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

The Spectacle of Democracy


War as the first demobilizing spectacle of our era is now largely forgotten because, as entertainment, it was reliant on ratings, and in the end, it lost the battle for viewers.  As a result, America's wars became ever more an activity to be conducted in the shadows beyond the view of most Americans.

If war was the first experimental subject for the demobilizing spectacle, democracy and elections turned out to be remarkably ripe for the plucking as well.  As a result, we now have the never-ending presidential campaign season.  In the past, elections did not necessarily lack either drama or spectacle.  In the nineteenth century, for instance, there were campaign torchlight parades, but those were always spectacles of mobilization.  No longer.  Our new 1% elections call for something different.http://www.wrex.com/story/8895106/lincoln-douglas-debates-in-freeport

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175478/tomgram:_engelhardt,_the_1%25_election/

It’s no secret that our presidential campaigns have morphed into a “billionaire’s playground,” even as the right to vote has become more constrained.  These days, it could be said that the only group of citizens that automatically mobilizes for such events is “the billionaire class” (as Bernie Sanders calls it).  Increasingly, many of the rest of us catch the now year-round spectacle demobilized in our living rooms, watching journalists play... gasp!... journalists on TV and give American democracy that good old Gotcha!
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176051/tomgram:_nomi_prins,_how_trump_became_trump_and_what_that_means_for_the_rest_of_us/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fight-for-american-voting-rights-inside-ari-bermans-new-book-20150729?page=2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-on-women-to-stand-up-to-billionaire-class/2015/10/23/b3c5d2ae-79a4-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_video.html

In 2001, George W. Bush wanted to send us all to Disney World (on our own dollar, of course).  In 2015, Disney World is increasingly coming directly to us.

After all, at the center of election 2016 is Donald Trump.  For a historical equivalent, you would have to imagine P.T. Barnum, who could sell any “curiosity” to the American public, running for president.  (In fact, he did serve two terms in the Connecticut legislature and was, improbably enough, the mayor of Bridgeport.)  Meanwhile, the TV “debates” that Trump and the rest of the candidates are now taking part in months before the first primary have left the League of Women Voters and the Commission on Presidential Debates in the dust.  These are the ratings-driven equivalent of food fights encased in ads, with the “questions” clearly based on what will glue eyeballs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum

http://lwv.org/content/league-women-voters-and-candidate-debates-changing-relationship

http://www.debates.org/

Here, for instance, was CNN host Jake Tapper’s first question of the second Republican debate: “Mrs. Fiorina, I want to start with you. Fellow Republican candidate, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, has suggested that your party’s frontrunner, Mr. Donald Trump, would be dangerous as president. He said he wouldn’t want, quote, ‘such a hot head with his finger on the nuclear codes.’ You, as well, have raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s temperament. You’ve dismissed him as an entertainer. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?”
http://time.com/4037239/second-republican-debate-transcript-cnn/

And the event only went downhill from there as responses ranged from non-answers to (no kidding!) a discussion of the looks of the candidates and yet the event proved such a ratings smash that its 23 million viewers were compared favorably to viewership of National Football League games.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/media/cnn-republican-debate-ratings/

In sum, a citizen’s duty, whether in time of war or elections, is now, at best, to watch the show, or at worst, to see nothing at all.

This reality has been highlighted by the whistleblowers of this generation, including Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and John Kiriakou.  Whenever they have revealed something of what our government is doing beyond our sight, they have been prosecuted with a fierceness unique in our history and for a simple enough reason.  Those who watch us believe themselves exempt from being watched by us.  That’s their definition of “democracy.”  When “spies” appear in their midst, even if those whistleblowers are “spies” for us, they are horrified at a visceral level and promptly haul out the World War I-era Espionage Act.  They now expect a demobilized response to whatever they do and when anything else is forthcoming, they strike back in outrage.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175526/tomgram:_peter_van_buren,_joining_the_whistleblowers'_club/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175843/tomgram:_glenn_greenwald,_how_i_met_edward_snowden/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175500/tomgram:_peter_van_buren,_in_washington,_fear_the_silence,_not_the_noise/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175733/engelhardt_spying_for_us

http://www.propublica.org/special/sealing-loose-lips-charting-obamas-crackdown-on-national-security-leaks

A Largely Demobilized Land


A report on a demobilized America shouldn’t end without some mention of at least one counter-impulse.  All systems assumedly have their opposites lurking somewhere inside them, which brings us to Bernie Sanders.  He’s the figure who doesn’t seem to compute in this story so far.

All you had to do was watch the first Democratic debate to sense what an anomaly he is, or you could have noted that, until almost the moment he went on stage that night, few involved in the election 2016 media spectacle had the time of day for him. And stranger yet, that lack of attention in the mainstream proved no impediment to the expansion of his campaign and his supporters, who, via social media and in person in the form of gigantic crowds, seem to exist in some parallel universe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/06/not-quite-all-things-considered-why-mainstream-media-discounts-bernie-sanders

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-does-bernie-sanders-draw-huge-crowds-to-see-him/2015/08/11/4ae018f8-3fde-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html

unpluggIn this election cycle, Sanders alone uses the words “mobilize” and “mobilization” regularly, while calling for a “political revolution.” (“We need to mobilize tens of millions of people to begin to stand up and fight back and to reclaim the government, which is now owned by big money.”) And there is no question that he has indeed mobilized significant numbers of young people, many of whom are undoubtedly ed from the TV set, even if glued to other screens, and so may hardly be noticing the mainstream spectacle at all.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/257747-sanders-wont-take-up-the-obama-mantle

Whether the Sanders phenomenon represents our past or our future, his age or the age of his followers, is impossible to know. We do, of course, have one recent example of a mobilization in an election season. In the 2008 election, the charismatic Barack Obama created a youthful, grassroots movement, a kind of cult of personality that helped sweep him to victory, only to demobilize it as soon as he entered the Oval Office. Sanders himself puts little emphasis on personality or a cult of the same and undoubtedly represents something different, though what exactly remains open to question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrMchxVF8w8



In the meantime, the national security state’s power is largely uncontested; the airlines still fly; Disney World continues to be a destination of choice; and the United States remains a largely demobilized land.


Tom Engelhardt

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence.” 

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.”  The desire to take the American public out of the “of the people, by the people, for the people” business can minimally be traced back to the Vietnam War -

The Demobilization of the American People and the Spectacle of Election 2016



You may not know it, but you’re living in a futuristic science fiction novel. And that’s a fact.  If you were to read about our American world in such a novel, you would be amazed by its strangeness.  Since you exist right smack in the middle of it, it seems like normal life (Donald Trump and Ben Carson aside).  But make no bones about it, so far this has been a bizarre American century.

Let me start with one of the odder moments we’ve lived through and give it the attention it’s always deserved.  If you follow my train of thought and the history it leads us into, I guarantee you that you’ll end up back exactly where we are -- in the midst of the strangest presidential campaign in our history.

To get a full frontal sense of what that means, however, let’s return to late September 2001.  I’m sure you remember that moment, just over two weeks after those World Trade Center towers came down and part of the Pentagon was destroyed, leaving a jangled secretary of defense instructing his aides, “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/

I couldn’t resist sticking in that classic Donald Rumsfeld line, but I leave it to others to deal with Saddam Hussein, those fictional weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq, and everything that’s happened since, including the establishment of a terror “caliphate” by a crew of Islamic extremists brought together in American military prison camps -- all of which you wouldn’t believe if it were part of a sci-fi novel. The damn thing would make Planet of the Apeslook like outright realism.http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/9301/%20jim_lobe_on_timing_the_cheney_nuclear_drumbeat

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story

Instead, try to recall the screaming headlines that labeled the 9/11 attacks “the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century” or “a new Day of Infamy,” and the attackers “the kamikazes of the twenty-first century.”  Remember the moment when President George W. Bush, bullhorn in hand, stepped onto the rubble at "Ground Zero" in New York, draped his arm around a fireman, and swore payback in the name of the American people, as members of an impromptu crowd shouted out things like “Go get ‘em, George!”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/9_11_an_explosion_out_of_the_towering_inferno_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE



“I can hear you! I can hear you!” he responded. “The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

USA!  USA!  USA!” chanted the crowd.

Then, on September 20th, addressing Congress, Bush added, “Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941.”  By then, he was already talking about "our war on terror."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/9_11_an_explosion_out_of_the_towering_inferno
_
Now, hop ahead to that long-forgotten moment when he would finally reveal just how a twenty-first-century American president should rally and mobilize the American people in the name of the ultimate in collective danger.  As CNN put it at the time, “President Bush... urged Americans to travel, spend, and enjoy life.” His actual words were:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/smn.26.html

“And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry and to tell the traveling public, get on board, do your business around the country, fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Go down to Disney World in Florida, take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed.”

So we went to war in Afghanistan and later Iraq to rebuild faith in flying.  Though that got little attention at the time, tell me it isn’t a detail out of some sci-fi novel.  Or put another way, as far as the Bush administration was then concerned, Rosie the Riveter was moldering in her grave and the model American for mobilizing a democratic nation in time of war was Rosie the Frequent Flyer.  It turned out not to be winter in Valley Forge, but eternal summer in Orlando.  From then on, as the Bush administration planned its version of revenge-cum-global-domination, the message it sent to the citizenry was: go about your business and leave the dirty work to us.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/We_Can_Do_It!.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter

Disney World opened in 1971, but for a moment imagine that it had been in existence in 1863 and that, more than seven score years ago, facing a country in the midst of a terrible civil war, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg had said this:http://www.d.umn.edu/~rmaclin/gettysburg-address.html

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom at Disney World -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish for lack of vacations in Florida.”

Or imagine that, in response to that “day of infamy,” the Pearl Harbor of the twentieth century, Franklin Roosevelt had gone before Congress and, in an address to the nation, had said:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/franklindroosevelt/a/Day-Of-Infamy-Speech.htm

“Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our airlines, with the unbounding determination of our people to visit Disney World, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.”

If those are absurdities, then so is twenty-first-century America.  By late September 2001, though no one would have put it that way, the demobilization of the American people had become a crucial aspect of Washington’s way of life.  The thought that Americans might be called upon to sacrifice in any way in a time of peril had gone with the wind.  Any newly minted version of the classic “don’t tread on me” flag of the revolutionary war era would have had to read: “don’t bother them.”

The Spectacle of War


The desire to take the American public out of the “of the people, by the people, for the people” business can minimally be traced back to the Vietnam War, to the moment when a citizen’s army began voting with its feet and antiwar sentiment grew to startling proportions not just on the home front, but inside a military in the field.  It was then that the high command began to fear the actual disintegration of the U.S. Army. https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html

Not surprisingly, there was a deep desire never to repeat such an experience.  (No more Vietnams!  No more antiwar movements!)  As a result, on January 27, 1973, with a stroke of the pen, President Richard Nixon abolished the draft, and so the citizen’s army.  With it went the sense that Americans had an obligation to serve their country in time of war (and peace).
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/01/us-military-draft-ends-jan-27-1973-072085

From that moment on, the urge to demobilize the American people and send them to Disney World would only grow.  First, they were to be removed from all imaginable aspects of war making.  Later, the same principle would be applied to the processes of government and to democracy itself.  In this context, for instance, you could write a history of the monstrous growth of secrecy and surveillance as twin deities of the American state: the urge to keep ever more information from the citizenry and to see ever more of what those citizens were doing in their own private time.  Both should be considered demobilizing trends.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175570/tomgram:_engelhardt,_the_national_security_complex_and_you/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175713/tomgram:_engelhardt,_you_are_our_secret/

This twin process y has a long history in the U.S., as any biography of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover would indicate.  Still, the expansion of secrecy and surveillance in this century has been a stunning development, as ever-larger parts of the national security state and the military (especially its 70,000-strong Special Operations forces) fell into the shadows.  In these years, American “safety” and “security” were redefined in terms of a citizen’s need not to know.  Only bathed in ignorance, were we safest from the danger that mattered most (Islamic terrorism -- a threat of microscopic proportions in the continental United States).
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175945/tomgram:_nick_turse,_a_shadow_war_in_150_countries/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175904/tomgram:_engelhardt,_inside_the_american_terrordome

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175901/tomgram:_engelhardt,_entering_the_intelligence_labyrinth/
As the American people were demobilized from war and left, in the post-9/11 era, with the single duty of eternally thanking and praising our "warriors” (or our "wounded warriors”), war itself was being transformed into a new kind of American entertainment spectacle.  In the 1980s, in response to the Vietnam experience, the Pentagon began to take responsibility not just for making war but for producing it.  Initially, in the invasions of Grenada and Panama, this largely meant sidelining the media, which many U.S. commanders still blamed for defeat in Vietnam.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175912/tomgram:_rory_fanning,_why_do_we_keep_thanking_the_troops/

By the First Gulf War of 1991, however, the Pentagon was prepared to produce a weeks-long televised extravaganza, which would enter the living rooms of increasingly demobilized Americans as a riveting show.  It would have its own snazzy graphics, logos, background music, and special effects (including nose-cone shots of targets obliterated).  In addition, retired military men were brought in to do Monday Night Football-style play-by-play and color commentary on the fighting in progress.  In this new version of war, there were to be no rebellious troops, no body bags, no body counts, no rogue reporters, and above all no antiwar movement.  In other words, the Gulf War was to be the anti-Vietnam. And it seemed to work... briefly.

Unfortunately for the first Bush administration, Saddam Hussein remained in power in Baghdad, the carefully staged post-war “victory” parades faded fast, the major networks lost ad money on the Pentagon’s show, and the ratings for war as entertainment sank.  More than a decade later, the second Bush administration, again eager not to repeat Vietnam and intent on sidelining the American public while it invaded and occupied Iraq, did it all over again.

movThis time, the Pentagon sent reporters to “boot camp,” “embedded” them with advancing units, built a quarter-million-dollar ie-style set for planned briefings in Doha, Qatar, and launched its invasion with “decapitation strikes” over Baghdad that lit the televised skies of the Iraqi capital an eerie green on TVs across America.  This spectacle of war, American-style, turned out to have a distinctly Disney-esque aura to it.  (Typically, however, those strikes produced scores of dead Iraqis, but managed to “decapitate” not a single targeted Iraqi leader from Saddam Hussein on down.)  That spectacle, replete with the usual music, logos, special effects, and those retired generals-cum-commentators -- this time even more tightly organized by the Pentagon -- turned out again to have a remarkably brief half-life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/international/middleeast/18MEDI.html?pagewanted=print

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/embedistan-reporting-with-or-without-the-military/

http://www.hrw.org/news/2003/12/12/us-hundreds-civilian-deaths-iraq-were-preventable

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/world/struggle-for-iraq-intelligence-errors-are-seen-early-attacks-iraqi-leaders.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

The Spectacle of Democracy


War as the first demobilizing spectacle of our era is now largely forgotten because, as entertainment, it was reliant on ratings, and in the end, it lost the battle for viewers.  As a result, America's wars became ever more an activity to be conducted in the shadows beyond the view of most Americans.

If war was the first experimental subject for the demobilizing spectacle, democracy and elections turned out to be remarkably ripe for the plucking as well.  As a result, we now have the never-ending presidential campaign season.  In the past, elections did not necessarily lack either drama or spectacle.  In the nineteenth century, for instance, there were campaign torchlight parades, but those were always spectacles of mobilization.  No longer.  Our new 1% elections call for something different.http://www.wrex.com/story/8895106/lincoln-douglas-debates-in-freeport

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175478/tomgram:_engelhardt,_the_1%25_election/

It’s no secret that our presidential campaigns have morphed into a “billionaire’s playground,” even as the right to vote has become more constrained.  These days, it could be said that the only group of citizens that automatically mobilizes for such events is “the billionaire class” (as Bernie Sanders calls it).  Increasingly, many of the rest of us catch the now year-round spectacle demobilized in our living rooms, watching journalists play... gasp!... journalists on TV and give American democracy that good old Gotcha!
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176051/tomgram:_nomi_prins,_how_trump_became_trump_and_what_that_means_for_the_rest_of_us/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fight-for-american-voting-rights-inside-ari-bermans-new-book-20150729?page=2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-on-women-to-stand-up-to-billionaire-class/2015/10/23/b3c5d2ae-79a4-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_video.html

In 2001, George W. Bush wanted to send us all to Disney World (on our own dollar, of course).  In 2015, Disney World is increasingly coming directly to us.

After all, at the center of election 2016 is Donald Trump.  For a historical equivalent, you would have to imagine P.T. Barnum, who could sell any “curiosity” to the American public, running for president.  (In fact, he did serve two terms in the Connecticut legislature and was, improbably enough, the mayor of Bridgeport.)  Meanwhile, the TV “debates” that Trump and the rest of the candidates are now taking part in months before the first primary have left the League of Women Voters and the Commission on Presidential Debates in the dust.  These are the ratings-driven equivalent of food fights encased in ads, with the “questions” clearly based on what will glue eyeballs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum

http://lwv.org/content/league-women-voters-and-candidate-debates-changing-relationship

http://www.debates.org/

Here, for instance, was CNN host Jake Tapper’s first question of the second Republican debate: “Mrs. Fiorina, I want to start with you. Fellow Republican candidate, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, has suggested that your party’s frontrunner, Mr. Donald Trump, would be dangerous as president. He said he wouldn’t want, quote, ‘such a hot head with his finger on the nuclear codes.’ You, as well, have raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s temperament. You’ve dismissed him as an entertainer. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?”
http://time.com/4037239/second-republican-debate-transcript-cnn/

And the event only went downhill from there as responses ranged from non-answers to (no kidding!) a discussion of the looks of the candidates and yet the event proved such a ratings smash that its 23 million viewers were compared favorably to viewership of National Football League games.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/media/cnn-republican-debate-ratings/

In sum, a citizen’s duty, whether in time of war or elections, is now, at best, to watch the show, or at worst, to see nothing at all.

This reality has been highlighted by the whistleblowers of this generation, including Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and John Kiriakou.  Whenever they have revealed something of what our government is doing beyond our sight, they have been prosecuted with a fierceness unique in our history and for a simple enough reason.  Those who watch us believe themselves exempt from being watched by us.  That’s their definition of “democracy.”  When “spies” appear in their midst, even if those whistleblowers are “spies” for us, they are horrified at a visceral level and promptly haul out the World War I-era Espionage Act.  They now expect a demobilized response to whatever they do and when anything else is forthcoming, they strike back in outrage.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175526/tomgram:_peter_van_buren,_joining_the_whistleblowers'_club/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175843/tomgram:_glenn_greenwald,_how_i_met_edward_snowden/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175500/tomgram:_peter_van_buren,_in_washington,_fear_the_silence,_not_the_noise/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175733/engelhardt_spying_for_us

http://www.propublica.org/special/sealing-loose-lips-charting-obamas-crackdown-on-national-security-leaks

A Largely Demobilized Land


A report on a demobilized America shouldn’t end without some mention of at least one counter-impulse.  All systems assumedly have their opposites lurking somewhere inside them, which brings us to Bernie Sanders.  He’s the figure who doesn’t seem to compute in this story so far.

All you had to do was watch the first Democratic debate to sense what an anomaly he is, or you could have noted that, until almost the moment he went on stage that night, few involved in the election 2016 media spectacle had the time of day for him. And stranger yet, that lack of attention in the mainstream proved no impediment to the expansion of his campaign and his supporters, who, via social media and in person in the form of gigantic crowds, seem to exist in some parallel universe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/06/not-quite-all-things-considered-why-mainstream-media-discounts-bernie-sanders

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-does-bernie-sanders-draw-huge-crowds-to-see-him/2015/08/11/4ae018f8-3fde-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html

unpluggIn this election cycle, Sanders alone uses the words “mobilize” and “mobilization” regularly, while calling for a “political revolution.” (“We need to mobilize tens of millions of people to begin to stand up and fight back and to reclaim the government, which is now owned by big money.”) And there is no question that he has indeed mobilized significant numbers of young people, many of whom are undoubtedly ed from the TV set, even if glued to other screens, and so may hardly be noticing the mainstream spectacle at all.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/257747-sanders-wont-take-up-the-obama-mantle

Whether the Sanders phenomenon represents our past or our future, his age or the age of his followers, is impossible to know. We do, of course, have one recent example of a mobilization in an election season. In the 2008 election, the charismatic Barack Obama created a youthful, grassroots movement, a kind of cult of personality that helped sweep him to victory, only to demobilize it as soon as he entered the Oval Office. Sanders himself puts little emphasis on personality or a cult of the same and undoubtedly represents something different, though what exactly remains open to question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrMchxVF8w8



In the meantime, the national security state’s power is largely uncontested; the airlines still fly; Disney World continues to be a destination of choice; and the United States remains a largely demobilized land.


Tom Engelhardt

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence.” 

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” 

U.S. Special Operations Forces To Invade Syria: Official

The special operations forces will be stationed in northern Syria and work alongside groups with a "proven track record" of fighting ISIS. 

U.S. Special Operations Forces To Invade Syria: Official


 The U.S. will send a small number of U.S. special operations forces into Syria as part of a shift in its strategy against ISIS, officials said Friday.

A senior administration official confirmed that President Barack Obama has authorized a contingent of less than 50 special operations forces to deploy into northern Syria.

"We have been focused on intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective," the official explained.

The White House was expected to announce the decision later Friday.

The move will be described as a "shift" but not a "change" in U.S. strategy against ISIS, another senior U.S. official told NBC News. The official said the special operations forces will be stationed in northern Syria and work alongside groups with a "proven track record" of fighting ISIS.

That could include working with Kurdish and allied actors who have come together under the umbrella of the "Syrian Democratic Forces," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not yet public.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said the expected announcement made clear the White House was feeling the pressure of a "failed policy" against ISIS.

"I'm concerned that the administration is trying to put in place limited measures — too late — that are not going to make a difference," he told NBC News. "I don't see a strategy towards accomplishing a goal, I see an effort to run out the clock without disaster."

Obama and his administration have come under mounting pressure amid signs the anti-ISIS coalition has stalled or at least failed to turn the tide against the militants — including the recent Pentagon decision to abandon a failed program to train and equip Syrian rebels.

Small signs of a sea change in strategy have been filtering out in recent weeks and gained steam in wake of a U.S.-backed raid to free ISIS hostages that cost the life of a Delta Force commando.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/master-sergeant-joshua-wheeler-idd-commando-killed-isis-hostage-rescue-n449876

Defense Secretary Ash Carter warned earlier this week that to expect more such raids when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon would be stepping up attacks against ISIS — including through "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.

Carter's remarks — in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee — immediately raised eyebrows given repeated assurances from President Barack Obama that U.S. troops in the region would not engage in combat.

The defense secretary himself referred to the aforementioned raid as "combat," where "things are complicated" in his comments to the committee.

The U.S. currently has around 3,300 troops in Iraq to train and advise Iraqi forces and protect U.S. facilities.

In addition to the announcement about sending Special Operations Forces into Syria, the White House will announce it will send more fighter jets to Turkey for intensified bombing runs on ISIS from a NATO airbase there.


Obama in 2013: ‘I Will Not Put American Boots on the Ground in Syria

By Alex Griswold

 During a September 10, 2013 speech announcing the beginning of U.S. military action in Syria, President Barack Obama promised that he would not put American boots on the ground in Syria.



Many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”

My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

Friday, the White House appeared to renege on that promise, announcing that U.S. special forces troops would be deployed to Syria to “advise and assist” rebels.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-white-house-to-announce-its-sending-u-s-special-forces-to-syria/

Watch above, via CNN.


By Richard Engel, Kristen Welker and Cassandra Vinograd

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” 

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.”  The special operations forces will be stationed in northern Syria and work alongside groups with a "proven track record" of fighting ISIS. 

U.S. Special Operations Forces To Invade Syria: Official


 The U.S. will send a small number of U.S. special operations forces into Syria as part of a shift in its strategy against ISIS, officials said Friday.

A senior administration official confirmed that President Barack Obama has authorized a contingent of less than 50 special operations forces to deploy into northern Syria.

"We have been focused on intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective," the official explained.

The White House was expected to announce the decision later Friday.

The move will be described as a "shift" but not a "change" in U.S. strategy against ISIS, another senior U.S. official told NBC News. The official said the special operations forces will be stationed in northern Syria and work alongside groups with a "proven track record" of fighting ISIS.

That could include working with Kurdish and allied actors who have come together under the umbrella of the "Syrian Democratic Forces," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not yet public.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said the expected announcement made clear the White House was feeling the pressure of a "failed policy" against ISIS.

"I'm concerned that the administration is trying to put in place limited measures — too late — that are not going to make a difference," he told NBC News. "I don't see a strategy towards accomplishing a goal, I see an effort to run out the clock without disaster."

Obama and his administration have come under mounting pressure amid signs the anti-ISIS coalition has stalled or at least failed to turn the tide against the militants — including the recent Pentagon decision to abandon a failed program to train and equip Syrian rebels.

Small signs of a sea change in strategy have been filtering out in recent weeks and gained steam in wake of a U.S.-backed raid to free ISIS hostages that cost the life of a Delta Force commando.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/master-sergeant-joshua-wheeler-idd-commando-killed-isis-hostage-rescue-n449876

Defense Secretary Ash Carter warned earlier this week that to expect more such raids when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon would be stepping up attacks against ISIS — including through "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.

Carter's remarks — in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee — immediately raised eyebrows given repeated assurances from President Barack Obama that U.S. troops in the region would not engage in combat.

The defense secretary himself referred to the aforementioned raid as "combat," where "things are complicated" in his comments to the committee.

The U.S. currently has around 3,300 troops in Iraq to train and advise Iraqi forces and protect U.S. facilities.

In addition to the announcement about sending Special Operations Forces into Syria, the White House will announce it will send more fighter jets to Turkey for intensified bombing runs on ISIS from a NATO airbase there.


Obama in 2013: ‘I Will Not Put American Boots on the Ground in Syria

By Alex Griswold

 During a September 10, 2013 speech announcing the beginning of U.S. military action in Syria, President Barack Obama promised that he would not put American boots on the ground in Syria.



Many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”

My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

Friday, the White House appeared to renege on that promise, announcing that U.S. special forces troops would be deployed to Syria to “advise and assist” rebels.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-white-house-to-announce-its-sending-u-s-special-forces-to-syria/

Watch above, via CNN.


By Richard Engel, Kristen Welker and Cassandra Vinograd

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” 

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” 

Tell Us Why We’re At War in Iraq Again, Mr. President

Tell us why we should believe you — this time — because history says you lie.

Tell Us Why We’re At War in Iraq Again, Mr. President


When I was a kid, three presidents told us we had to fight in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, because if we didn’t fight them over there, we’d have to fight them on the beaches of California. We believed. It was a lie.

I was a teenager during the Cold War, and several presidents told us we needed to create massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, garrison the world, invade Cuba, fight in odd little places and use the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with dictators, or the Russians would destroy us. We believed. It was a lie.

When I was in college our president told us that we needed to fight in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua or the Sandinistas would come to the United States. He told us Managua was closer to Washington DC than LA was. He told us we needed to fight in Lebanon, Grenada and Libya to protect ourselves. We believed. It was a lie.

When I was a little older our president told us how evil Saddam Hussein was, how his soldiers bayoneted babies in Kuwait. He told us Saddam was a threat to America. He told us we needed to invade Panama to oust a dictator to protect America. We believed. It was a lie.

The next president told us we had to fight terrorists in Somalia, as well as bomb Iraq, to protect ourselves. We believed. It was a lie.

The one after him told us that because a group of Saudis from a group loosely tied to Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11, we needed to occupy that country and destroy the Taliban, who had not attacked us, for our own safety. The Taliban are still there. But we believed. It was a lie.

After that we were told that Saddam Hussein threatened every one of us with weapons of mass destruction, that the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud, that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda. We believed. It was a lie.

In 2011 the president and his secretary of state told us we needed regime change in Libya, to protect us from an evil dictator. We believed. It was a lie.

In August 2014 the same president told us we needed to intervene again in Iraq, on a humanitarian mission to save the Yazidis. No boots on the ground, a simple act of humanness that only the United States could conduct, and then leave. We believed. It was a lie.

Now we are told by that same president that Americans will again fight on the ground in Iraq, and Syria, and that Americans have and will die. He says that this is necessary to protect us, because if we do not defeat Islamic State over there, they will come here, to what we now call without shame or irony The Homeland.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/258495-pentagon-of-course-us-troops-are-in-combat#.VjGuTxWRy1I.twitter

We want to believe, Mr. President. We want to know it is not a lie.

So please address us, explain why what you are doing in Iraq is different than everything listed above. Tell us why we should believe you — this time — because history says you lie.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran of the State Department, spent a year in Iraq


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” 

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” 

Tell us why we should believe you — this time — because history says you lie.

Tell Us Why We’re At War in Iraq Again, Mr. President


When I was a kid, three presidents told us we had to fight in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, because if we didn’t fight them over there, we’d have to fight them on the beaches of California. We believed. It was a lie.

I was a teenager during the Cold War, and several presidents told us we needed to create massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons, garrison the world, invade Cuba, fight in odd little places and use the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with dictators, or the Russians would destroy us. We believed. It was a lie.

When I was in college our president told us that we needed to fight in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua or the Sandinistas would come to the United States. He told us Managua was closer to Washington DC than LA was. He told us we needed to fight in Lebanon, Grenada and Libya to protect ourselves. We believed. It was a lie.

When I was a little older our president told us how evil Saddam Hussein was, how his soldiers bayoneted babies in Kuwait. He told us Saddam was a threat to America. He told us we needed to invade Panama to oust a dictator to protect America. We believed. It was a lie.

The next president told us we had to fight terrorists in Somalia, as well as bomb Iraq, to protect ourselves. We believed. It was a lie.

The one after him told us that because a group of Saudis from a group loosely tied to Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11, we needed to occupy that country and destroy the Taliban, who had not attacked us, for our own safety. The Taliban are still there. But we believed. It was a lie.

After that we were told that Saddam Hussein threatened every one of us with weapons of mass destruction, that the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud, that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda. We believed. It was a lie.

In 2011 the president and his secretary of state told us we needed regime change in Libya, to protect us from an evil dictator. We believed. It was a lie.

In August 2014 the same president told us we needed to intervene again in Iraq, on a humanitarian mission to save the Yazidis. No boots on the ground, a simple act of humanness that only the United States could conduct, and then leave. We believed. It was a lie.

Now we are told by that same president that Americans will again fight on the ground in Iraq, and Syria, and that Americans have and will die. He says that this is necessary to protect us, because if we do not defeat Islamic State over there, they will come here, to what we now call without shame or irony The Homeland.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/258495-pentagon-of-course-us-troops-are-in-combat#.VjGuTxWRy1I.twitter

We want to believe, Mr. President. We want to know it is not a lie.

So please address us, explain why what you are doing in Iraq is different than everything listed above. Tell us why we should believe you — this time — because history says you lie.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran of the State Department, spent a year in Iraq


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts


“How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” 

“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.” 



The Death of the American Welfare State

The Death of the American Welfare State


In 1935, the year that FDR signed the Social Security Act into law, the birth rate was 18.7 per 1,000. In 1940, when the first monthly check was issued, it had gone up to 19.4. By 1954, when Disability had been added, the birth rate at the heart of the Baby Boom stood at 25.3.

In a nation of 163 million people, 4 million babies were being born each year.

By 1965, when Medicare was plugged in, the birth rate had fallen back to 19.4. For the first time in ten years fewer than 4 million babies had been born in a country of 195 million. Medicare had been added in the same year that saw the single biggest drop in birth rates since the Great Depression.

There could not have been a worse time for Medicare than the end of the Baby Boom.

Today in a nation of 319 million, 4.1 million babies are being born each year for a birth rate of 13.0 per 1,000. 40.7% of those births are to unmarried mothers meaning that it will be a long time, if ever, before those single families put back into the system, and most will never put back in as much as they are taking out. Those children will cost more to educate, be more likely to be involved in crime and less likely to succeed economically. But even if they weren't, the system would still be unsustainable.

Liberals act as if the crisis facing us can be fixed if we take more from the "wealthy elderly" or give them less. And the topic even came up at the CNBC Republican debate in a Social Security debate.

But the problem is not the amount of money being spent at the top on the elderly, but the diminishing prospects for paying in money at the bottom. Youth unemployment is high and job prospects are low. And the birth rate is skewed toward populations that are the least likely to be educated, the least likely to have good jobs and the least likely to pay more into the system than that they take out of it.

At the CNBC Debate, Senator Rand Paul said, "It’s not Republicans’ fault, it’s not Democrats’ fault, it’s your grandparents’ fault for having too many damn kids." But it's the other way around. Your grandparents didn't have enough kids. Neither did your parents. Neither do you.

Ron Paul had five kids. He had four brothers. That's a stable generational expansion. Without that, there's no one to pay for an older population that is living longer.

The crisis is born of demographics. It can't be fixed by targeting the elderly because they haven't been the problem in some time. It's the same crisis being faced by countries as diverse as Russia and Japan. The difference is that Russia is autocratic and has little concern for its people while Japan shuns immigration and has a political system dominated by the elderly.

Bernie Sanders admires Europe. But Europe's welfare state is imploding because of low birth rates. And so it adopted the American solution of expecting immigrants to make up the difference. But the immigrants have high rates of unemployment and low rates of productivity. Instead of funding the welfare state, they're bankrupting it even faster.

The United States takes in a million immigrants a year, many of whom also take out more than they put in. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Barack Obama praised Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Haitian woman who moved to the United States at the age of 79 and doesn't speak English, but did spend hours waiting in line in Florida to vote for Obama.

Between 1990 and 2010, the number of immigrants over 65 doubled from 2.7 million to 5 million. 25 percent of these senior immigrants were over 80. Desiline Victor wasn't an outlier. Elderly immigrants are also much more likely to become citizens, in part because the requirements for them are lower. Many, like Victor, don't even have to learn English to be able to stand in line and vote.

15 percent of senior immigrants come from Mexico largely as a result of family unification programs. If amnesty for illegal aliens goes through, before long the country will be on the hook not just for twelve million illegal aliens, but also for their grandparents.

The welfare state has been spending more money with an unsustainable demographic imbalance. There are fewer working families supporting more elderly, immigrants and broken families. The Russians invest money into increasing the native birth rate. Instead we fund Planned Parenthood because liberal economic eugenics dictates that we should extract "full value" from working women as a tax base to subsidize the welfare state while discarding the next generation.

The "modern" system that we have adopted with its low birth rates, late marriages, working parents, high social spending and retirement benefits is at odds with itself. We can have low birth rates, deficit spending or Social Security; but there is no possible way that we can have all three.

And yet we have all three.


Instead of forming a comprehensive picture, our approach is to tackle each problem as if were wholly separate from everything else. Working parents are applauded because they swell out the tax base in the short term. Young immigrants are applauded because they are supposed to swell out the lower part of the demographic imbalance. Manufacturing jobs are cast aside for modern jobs. The long term consequences of each step is ignored.

In the European model that we have adopted, men and women are supposed to spend their twenties being educated and their thirties having two children. These Johns and Julias will work in some appropriately "modern" field building apps, designing environmentally sustainable cribs for the few children being born or teaching new immigrants to speak enough English to vote. Then they plan to retire on money that doesn't actually exist because they are still paying off their student loans.

The reality is that John and Julia begin their marriage with tens of thousands in debts, only one of them will work full time, while the other balances part time work, and they will do all this while being expected to support social services for new immigrants and a native working class displaced by the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, not to mention the elderly and the entire bureaucracy that has grown around them. If John and Julia are lucky, they will find work in a technology field that is still growing, or, more likely they will pry their way into the social services bureaucracy which will keep on paying them and cover their benefits until the national bankruptcy finally arrives.

John and Julia are Obama voters. They have two children. They don't worry about the future. The future to them seems to be a bright and modern thing overseen by experts and meticulously planned out in every detail. The only dark clouds on their horizon are the Republicans and the Great Unwashed in the Red States who are resisting the future by clinging to their guns and bibles.

In this post-work and post-poverty economy, those most likely to have children are also least likely to work or to be able to afford to have those children.

Birth rates for women on welfare are three times higher than for those who are not on welfare. Within a single year, the census survey found that unmarried women had twice as high a birth rate as married women. These demographics help perpetuate poverty and feed a welfare death spiral in which more money has to be spent on social services for a less productive tax base.

Children raised on welfare are far more likely to end up on welfare than the children of working families.

Fertility rates fall sharply above the $50,000 income line and with a graduate degree; that has ominous implications in a country whose socio-economic mobility rates continue to fall. There are a number of factors responsible, but one simple factor is that work ethics and skills are no longer being passed down to a growing percentage of the population.

Liberal activists still talk as if we can afford any level of social service expenditures if we raise taxes on the rich, but workers can't be created by raising taxes. The issue isn't "investing more in education" which is the liberal solution for everything including the imminent heat death of the universe.

It's liberalism.

Everything that the left has done, from breaking up the family to driving out manufacturing industries to promoting Third World immigration has made its own spending completely unsustainable. On a social level alone, we don't have the people we need to pay the bills. And at the rate we are going, we will only run up more bills that our demographics and our culture can no longer cash.

By 2031, nearly a century after the Social Security Act, an estimated 75 million baby boomers will have retired. Aside from the demographic disparity in worker ages is a subtler disparity in worker productivity and independence as senior citizens are left chasing social spending dollars that are increasingly going to a younger population. ObamaCare with its Medicare Advantage cuts was a bellwether of the shift in health care spending from seniors to the welfare population.

14 million people are now on Disability. That means that there are more people on Disability than there were people in the country during the War of 1812. Half of those on Disability are claiming back problems or mental problems. There are over a million children on Disability and the program is packed with younger recipients who are substituting it for welfare.


Increasing welfare is only a form of Death Panel economic triage that doesn't compensate for the lack

of productive workers. It's easy to model Obamerica as Detroit, a country with a huge indigent welfare population and a small wealthy tax base. The model doesn't work in Detroit and it's flailing in New York, California and every city and state where it's been tried.

After a century of misery, the left still hasn’t learned that there is no substitute for the middle class. It’s not just running out of money, it’s running out of people.

The welfare state is bankrupt and doesn't know it yet. Reality hasn't caught up with the numbers. Instead the welfare state is floating on loans based on past productivity, old infrastructure and a diminishing productive population whose technological industries employ fewer people and don't require their physical presence in the United States.

The welfare state has no future. It is only a question of what terms it will implode on and what will happen to the social welfare political infrastructure when it does. The violence in Venezuela and the slow death of Detroit give us insights into the coming collapse of the welfare state.


Daniel Greenfield

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts

“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”  The Death of the American Welfare State


In 1935, the year that FDR signed the Social Security Act into law, the birth rate was 18.7 per 1,000. In 1940, when the first monthly check was issued, it had gone up to 19.4. By 1954, when Disability had been added, the birth rate at the heart of the Baby Boom stood at 25.3.

In a nation of 163 million people, 4 million babies were being born each year.

By 1965, when Medicare was plugged in, the birth rate had fallen back to 19.4. For the first time in ten years fewer than 4 million babies had been born in a country of 195 million. Medicare had been added in the same year that saw the single biggest drop in birth rates since the Great Depression.

There could not have been a worse time for Medicare than the end of the Baby Boom.

Today in a nation of 319 million, 4.1 million babies are being born each year for a birth rate of 13.0 per 1,000. 40.7% of those births are to unmarried mothers meaning that it will be a long time, if ever, before those single families put back into the system, and most will never put back in as much as they are taking out. Those children will cost more to educate, be more likely to be involved in crime and less likely to succeed economically. But even if they weren't, the system would still be unsustainable.

Liberals act as if the crisis facing us can be fixed if we take more from the "wealthy elderly" or give them less. And the topic even came up at the CNBC Republican debate in a Social Security debate.

But the problem is not the amount of money being spent at the top on the elderly, but the diminishing prospects for paying in money at the bottom. Youth unemployment is high and job prospects are low. And the birth rate is skewed toward populations that are the least likely to be educated, the least likely to have good jobs and the least likely to pay more into the system than that they take out of it.

At the CNBC Debate, Senator Rand Paul said, "It’s not Republicans’ fault, it’s not Democrats’ fault, it’s your grandparents’ fault for having too many damn kids." But it's the other way around. Your grandparents didn't have enough kids. Neither did your parents. Neither do you.

Ron Paul had five kids. He had four brothers. That's a stable generational expansion. Without that, there's no one to pay for an older population that is living longer.

The crisis is born of demographics. It can't be fixed by targeting the elderly because they haven't been the problem in some time. It's the same crisis being faced by countries as diverse as Russia and Japan. The difference is that Russia is autocratic and has little concern for its people while Japan shuns immigration and has a political system dominated by the elderly.

Bernie Sanders admires Europe. But Europe's welfare state is imploding because of low birth rates. And so it adopted the American solution of expecting immigrants to make up the difference. But the immigrants have high rates of unemployment and low rates of productivity. Instead of funding the welfare state, they're bankrupting it even faster.

The United States takes in a million immigrants a year, many of whom also take out more than they put in. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Barack Obama praised Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Haitian woman who moved to the United States at the age of 79 and doesn't speak English, but did spend hours waiting in line in Florida to vote for Obama.

Between 1990 and 2010, the number of immigrants over 65 doubled from 2.7 million to 5 million. 25 percent of these senior immigrants were over 80. Desiline Victor wasn't an outlier. Elderly immigrants are also much more likely to become citizens, in part because the requirements for them are lower. Many, like Victor, don't even have to learn English to be able to stand in line and vote.

15 percent of senior immigrants come from Mexico largely as a result of family unification programs. If amnesty for illegal aliens goes through, before long the country will be on the hook not just for twelve million illegal aliens, but also for their grandparents.

The welfare state has been spending more money with an unsustainable demographic imbalance. There are fewer working families supporting more elderly, immigrants and broken families. The Russians invest money into increasing the native birth rate. Instead we fund Planned Parenthood because liberal economic eugenics dictates that we should extract "full value" from working women as a tax base to subsidize the welfare state while discarding the next generation.

The "modern" system that we have adopted with its low birth rates, late marriages, working parents, high social spending and retirement benefits is at odds with itself. We can have low birth rates, deficit spending or Social Security; but there is no possible way that we can have all three.

And yet we have all three.


Instead of forming a comprehensive picture, our approach is to tackle each problem as if were wholly separate from everything else. Working parents are applauded because they swell out the tax base in the short term. Young immigrants are applauded because they are supposed to swell out the lower part of the demographic imbalance. Manufacturing jobs are cast aside for modern jobs. The long term consequences of each step is ignored.

In the European model that we have adopted, men and women are supposed to spend their twenties being educated and their thirties having two children. These Johns and Julias will work in some appropriately "modern" field building apps, designing environmentally sustainable cribs for the few children being born or teaching new immigrants to speak enough English to vote. Then they plan to retire on money that doesn't actually exist because they are still paying off their student loans.

The reality is that John and Julia begin their marriage with tens of thousands in debts, only one of them will work full time, while the other balances part time work, and they will do all this while being expected to support social services for new immigrants and a native working class displaced by the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, not to mention the elderly and the entire bureaucracy that has grown around them. If John and Julia are lucky, they will find work in a technology field that is still growing, or, more likely they will pry their way into the social services bureaucracy which will keep on paying them and cover their benefits until the national bankruptcy finally arrives.

John and Julia are Obama voters. They have two children. They don't worry about the future. The future to them seems to be a bright and modern thing overseen by experts and meticulously planned out in every detail. The only dark clouds on their horizon are the Republicans and the Great Unwashed in the Red States who are resisting the future by clinging to their guns and bibles.

In this post-work and post-poverty economy, those most likely to have children are also least likely to work or to be able to afford to have those children.

Birth rates for women on welfare are three times higher than for those who are not on welfare. Within a single year, the census survey found that unmarried women had twice as high a birth rate as married women. These demographics help perpetuate poverty and feed a welfare death spiral in which more money has to be spent on social services for a less productive tax base.

Children raised on welfare are far more likely to end up on welfare than the children of working families.

Fertility rates fall sharply above the $50,000 income line and with a graduate degree; that has ominous implications in a country whose socio-economic mobility rates continue to fall. There are a number of factors responsible, but one simple factor is that work ethics and skills are no longer being passed down to a growing percentage of the population.

Liberal activists still talk as if we can afford any level of social service expenditures if we raise taxes on the rich, but workers can't be created by raising taxes. The issue isn't "investing more in education" which is the liberal solution for everything including the imminent heat death of the universe.

It's liberalism.

Everything that the left has done, from breaking up the family to driving out manufacturing industries to promoting Third World immigration has made its own spending completely unsustainable. On a social level alone, we don't have the people we need to pay the bills. And at the rate we are going, we will only run up more bills that our demographics and our culture can no longer cash.

By 2031, nearly a century after the Social Security Act, an estimated 75 million baby boomers will have retired. Aside from the demographic disparity in worker ages is a subtler disparity in worker productivity and independence as senior citizens are left chasing social spending dollars that are increasingly going to a younger population. ObamaCare with its Medicare Advantage cuts was a bellwether of the shift in health care spending from seniors to the welfare population.

14 million people are now on Disability. That means that there are more people on Disability than there were people in the country during the War of 1812. Half of those on Disability are claiming back problems or mental problems. There are over a million children on Disability and the program is packed with younger recipients who are substituting it for welfare.


Increasing welfare is only a form of Death Panel economic triage that doesn't compensate for the lack

of productive workers. It's easy to model Obamerica as Detroit, a country with a huge indigent welfare population and a small wealthy tax base. The model doesn't work in Detroit and it's flailing in New York, California and every city and state where it's been tried.

After a century of misery, the left still hasn’t learned that there is no substitute for the middle class. It’s not just running out of money, it’s running out of people.

The welfare state is bankrupt and doesn't know it yet. Reality hasn't caught up with the numbers. Instead the welfare state is floating on loans based on past productivity, old infrastructure and a diminishing productive population whose technological industries employ fewer people and don't require their physical presence in the United States.

The welfare state has no future. It is only a question of what terms it will implode on and what will happen to the social welfare political infrastructure when it does. The violence in Venezuela and the slow death of Detroit give us insights into the coming collapse of the welfare state.


Daniel Greenfield

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience/notes

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts

“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.” 

Friday, October 30, 2015

America Should Be Asking “What Happens to a Nation After Gun Confiscation?”

America Should Be Asking “What Happens to a Nation After Gun Confiscation?”






Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words. Can UN gun confiscation be far behind thanks to the UN Small Arms Treaty. John Kerry illegally signed this treaty without the requisite 2/3rds approval of the Senate which is required for all treaties.

In the midst of the frenetic Jade Helm activities, it was easy to lose track about the importance of several events. This is precisely what happpened in Michigan between July 27 and September 15. During that time, troops from several nations, including 3000 Polish troops practiced seizing the guns from American citizens.



As if this wasn’t bad enough, there are details emerging from the event that are very troubling.

When I viewed the above video near the end of July of 2015, I did not think much of this because the nation was embroiled in the massive military exercises associated with Jade Helm 15.  At least that was what I thought until I received the following email:

Dear Dave

My husband was involved in a training exercise, here in Michigan in combination with several thousand foreign troops. For weeks, the drills were always the same. They would pull make believe American families out of their homes after they forcibly entered the home look for guns. In the final week of the drill, the exercise to a turn toward the unbelievable.
In the final week, after they pulled would-be Americans, played by actors, out of the home, they would search for guns. They forced the family members to kneel on the ground. If they found guns in the home, they pretended to execute the entire family. My husbands platoon was the only American troops at the scene. The Americans did not participate in the raids on the homes. The National Guard troops provided intelligence and communications support for the units. The abuse of the pretend American families was all done by the foreign troops. This has shaken my husband up. He feels he knows what is coiming. The operation was conducted under the UN flag. He wants the word out but does not want to be discovered as an informant. Because of this I cannot sign my name. God help us Dave what are we coming to?

It Is Time to Start Asking What Happens to a Nation Following Gun Confiscation?

You ever wondered what happens to a people after gun confiscation? Do they live happily ever after? Not quite. Genocide is the most important development that followes a government stripping its citizens of the rights.

Before we passively allow the Obama administration strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government, by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:

genocide 4

genocide 31. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.


genocide 57. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

genocide 2

Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.

The Nazi Weapons Actof 1938

1 Classified guns for sporting purposes

2 All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check

3 The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi’s from the gun control law

4 The Nazi’s assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons

5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats

6 Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition

United States Gun Control Actof 1968

1 Introduced term “sporting purpose”
2 All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check2 Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens
3 The Law assumes that mentally ill people will turn their guns on innocents and the government is given the power to limit the purchase by people DEEMED to be a threat by labeling them as mentally ill.
4 Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons
5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats
6 Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition

Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.

Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?

Still think Obama is harmless?

Finally, most would wonder what gun confiscation would look and feel like in America. Nobody knows because it has never happened. It is only a matter of time.



Dave Hodges

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts




“Civil disobedience is a natural response to a world like ours; it means refusing to be a bystander to the apparent trajectory of the social order. We don’t think twice about the direct action of stopping traffic to protect a child who wandered into it unknowingly; we would practice civil disobedience any day in situations like that, never thinking of standing by or waiting for a majority vote. The same is true in our movement. We know this system is broken, we know it doesn’t have to be this way and we know there is an alternative. So we stop traffic. The question is not whether we should use civil disobedience as part of our movement’s arsenal — but how, for what, and when.” America Should Be Asking “What Happens to a Nation After Gun Confiscation?”






Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words. Can UN gun confiscation be far behind thanks to the UN Small Arms Treaty. John Kerry illegally signed this treaty without the requisite 2/3rds approval of the Senate which is required for all treaties.

In the midst of the frenetic Jade Helm activities, it was easy to lose track about the importance of several events. This is precisely what happpened in Michigan between July 27 and September 15. During that time, troops from several nations, including 3000 Polish troops practiced seizing the guns from American citizens.



As if this wasn’t bad enough, there are details emerging from the event that are very troubling.

When I viewed the above video near the end of July of 2015, I did not think much of this because the nation was embroiled in the massive military exercises associated with Jade Helm 15.  At least that was what I thought until I received the following email:

Dear Dave

My husband was involved in a training exercise, here in Michigan in combination with several thousand foreign troops. For weeks, the drills were always the same. They would pull make believe American families out of their homes after they forcibly entered the home look for guns. In the final week of the drill, the exercise to a turn toward the unbelievable.
In the final week, after they pulled would-be Americans, played by actors, out of the home, they would search for guns. They forced the family members to kneel on the ground. If they found guns in the home, they pretended to execute the entire family. My husbands platoon was the only American troops at the scene. The Americans did not participate in the raids on the homes. The National Guard troops provided intelligence and communications support for the units. The abuse of the pretend American families was all done by the foreign troops. This has shaken my husband up. He feels he knows what is coiming. The operation was conducted under the UN flag. He wants the word out but does not want to be discovered as an informant. Because of this I cannot sign my name. God help us Dave what are we coming to?

It Is Time to Start Asking What Happens to a Nation Following Gun Confiscation?

You ever wondered what happens to a people after gun confiscation? Do they live happily ever after? Not quite. Genocide is the most important development that followes a government stripping its citizens of the rights.

Before we passively allow the Obama administration strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government, by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:

genocide 4

genocide 31. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.


genocide 57. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.

genocide 2

Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.

The Nazi Weapons Actof 1938

1 Classified guns for sporting purposes

2 All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check

3 The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi’s from the gun control law

4 The Nazi’s assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons

5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats

6 Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition

United States Gun Control Actof 1968

1 Introduced term “sporting purpose”
2 All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check2 Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens
3 The Law assumes that mentally ill people will turn their guns on innocents and the government is given the power to limit the purchase by people DEEMED to be a threat by labeling them as mentally ill.
4 Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons
5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats
6 Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition

Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.

Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?

Still think Obama is harmless?

Finally, most would wonder what gun confiscation would look and feel like in America. Nobody knows because it has never happened. It is only a matter of time.



Dave Hodges

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience

https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom/posts




“Civil disobedience is a natural response to a world like ours; it means refusing to be a bystander to the apparent trajectory of the social order. We don’t think twice about the direct action of stopping traffic to protect a child who wandered into it unknowingly; we would practice civil disobedience any day in situations like that, never thinking of standing by or waiting for a majority vote. The same is true in our movement. We know this system is broken, we know it doesn’t have to be this way and we know there is an alternative. So we stop traffic. The question is not whether we should use civil disobedience as part of our movement’s arsenal — but how, for what, and when.”