Militarization of Police Departments and SWAT Team in America — Who is the enemy? The American People — War on Drugs — War on Terror — War on Americans — Videos

Posted on June 28, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Drones, Economics, Education, Employment, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, media, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Rifles, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

 

Obama Expands Militarization of Police

Are Police Declaring War on Americans?

RISE Of The WARRIOR COP: The Militarization Of America’s Police Forces

Radley Balko on The Militarized Police State

MILITARIZATION OF POLICE – PENTAGON is ARMING the U.S. POLICE with MRAP Military COMBAT VEHICLE’s

 

Barney Fife Meets Delta Force 

Hypermilitarized police departments are more dangerous than whatever they fight. 

 

Nestled awkwardly among the usual guff, the outrage website Salon this week took a welcome flyer and accorded space to something genuinely alarming. “A SWAT team,” the headline screamed, “blew a hole in my 2-year-old son.” For once, this wasn’t hyperbole.

The piece’s author, Alecia Phonesavanh, described what it felt like to be on the business end of an attack that was launched in error by police who believed a drug dealer to be living and operating in her house. They “threw a flashbang grenade inside,” she reported. It “landed in my son’s crib.” Now, her son is “covered in burns” and has “a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs.” So badly injured was he by the raid that he was “placed into a medically induced coma.” “They searched for drugs,” Phonesavanh confirmed, but they “never found any.” Nor, for that matter, did they find the person they were looking for. He doesn’t live there. “All of this,” she asks, “to find a small amount of drugs?”

 

Historians looking back at this period in America’s development will consider it to be profoundly odd that at the exact moment when violent crime hit a 50-year low, the nation’s police departments began to gear up as if the country were expecting invasion — and, on occasion, to behave as if one were underway. The ACLU reported recently that SWAT teams in the United States conduct around 45,000 raids each year, only 7 percent of which have anything whatsoever to do with the hostage situations with which those teams were assembled to contend. Paramilitary operations, the ACLU concluded, are “happening in about 124 homes every day — or more likely every night” — and four in five of those are performed in order that authorities might “search homes, usually for drugs.” Such raids routinely involve “armored personnel carriers,” “military equipment like battering rams,” and “flashbang grenades.”

 

Were the military being used in such a manner, we would be rightly outraged. Why not here? Certainly this is not a legal matter. The principle of posse comitatus draws a valuable distinction between the national armed forces and parochial law enforcement, and one that all free people should greatly cherish. Still, it seems plain that the potential threat posed by a domestic standing army is not entirely blunted just because its units are controlled locally. To add the prefix “para” to a problem is not to make it go away, nor do legal distinctions change the nature of power. Over the past two decades, the federal government has happily sent weapons of war to local law enforcement, with nary a squeak from anyone involved with either political party. Are we comfortable with this?

The Right’s silence on the issue is vexing indeed, the admirable attempts of a few libertarians notwithstanding. Here, conservatives seem to be conflicted between their rightful predilection for law and order — an instinct that is based upon an accurate comprehension of human nature and an acknowledgment of the existence of evil — and a well-developed and wholly sensible fear of state power, predicated upon precisely the same thing. As of now, the former is rather dramatically winning out, leading conservatives to indulge — or at least tacitly to permit — excuses that they typically reject elsewhere. Much as the teachers’ unions invariably attempt to justify their “anything goes” contracts by pointing to the ends that they ostensibly serve (“Well you do want schools for the children or don’t you? Sign here”), the increasingly muscular behavior of local police departments is often shrugged off as a by-product of the need to fight crime. This, if left unchecked, is a recipe for precisely the sort of carte blanche that conservatives claim to fear.

Leaving aside the central moral question of the War on Drugs — which is whether the state should be responding to peaceful transactions and consensual behavior with violence — there is, it seems, considerable room between law enforcement’s turning a blind eye to the law and its aping the military in its attempt to uphold it. The cartels of Mexico and drug lords of America’s larger cities are one thing; but two-bit dealers and consumers of illicit substances are quite another. In the instance that Salon recorded, the person that authorities “were looking for, wasn’t there.” “He doesn’t even live in that house,” Phonesavanh confirmed. But suppose that he had, and that he’d been dealing drugs as charged? Does this alone make the case for the tactics? I suspect not. Instead, attempting to catch a violator in the act by releasing military vehicles full of machine-gun-wielding men, storming a home in the dead of night, and performing a no-knock raid that results in a two-year-old’s being pushed into a coma might, one suspects, be overkill — in many similar cases, literally so. The question for conservatives should be this: If cowboy poetry is no justification for federal intrusion, can drug dealing be said to serve as an open invitation for the deployment of the ersatz 101st?

In the more febrile of the Right’s quarters, the sight of MRAPs being delivered to the chief of police in Westington, Mont., has given rise to all forms of regrettable silliness — to visions of black helicopters and reeducation camps and an America on the verge of being taken by force by the gun-toting rangers of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Nevertheless, a small amount of latent paranoia has served America well, and Chekhov’s advice that “one must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it” should be applied to governments as rigorously as to aspiring playwrights. Once the holders of the monopoly on violence are accorded the latest weaponry, there will always be the temptation to use it. Likewise, once one has taken the mental and linguistic leap of ascribing to domestic law enforcement the imprimatur of “war,” one may be inclined to reach for the trigger that little bit more quickly. The disaster at Waco, Texas, was, it seems, more cock-up than conspiracy. But the recognition in the aftermath that the whole bloody mess could have been avoided if local officers had taken the time to chat with the victims should haunt us to this day. Rushing in at 100 miles per hour rarely works out, whatever the ill that one is attempting to resolve.

The Left’s current inclination is to spin offenses out of straw — having no major battles left to fight, it seeks to detect microaggressions; with overt bigotry so thin on the ground, the dog whistles have come out; and with the barriers to the Declaration’s maxim having been largely removed, the focus has shifted to the structural and the invisible. But first-degree burns and holes in the chest are different things altogether — not to be dismissed or downplayed — and that the issue is being raised by an outlet known for its absurdity should not dull its impact. Will the Right wake up to the threat, applying its usual mistrust of power to a favored group, or will its usually alert advocates leave themselves willfully in the dark until, one day, a flashbang with their name on it is tossed through the window to wake them up with a start?

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Kill List–Drones–Remotely Piloted Aircraft–RPAs–Killing Machines–We Don’t Torture Terrorists–We Kill Americans, Civilians and Children in Undeclared Wars–Obama is Judge, Jury, and Executioner–Hope, Change, and Murder, Inc.–The Mass Murderer In The White House–Videos

Posted on February 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Diasters, Drones, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

01302013-obama-drone-strikes

reaper_drone

Somalia-drones-Obama

obama-kill-list

domestic-drone-cartoon

obama_kill_list

Drone-Disapproval

why-do-they-hate-us

Spies in the sky

Rand Paul Says He’ll Block Nominations Until Answered If Drone Assassinations

Obama’s Kill List, Drones, & Assassinating U.S. Citizens

Deadly Drone Strikes – Obama is ‘Serious’

Obama Drone Strikes Are ‘Mass Murder’ – Jeremy Scahill 

Drone Strikes Kill Numerous Civilians – Report

“Thousands Of Innocent People Have Been Killed Under These Drone Attacks!”

Gerald Celente on Farrakhan “Murderer in The White House” comment “Call These People What They Are”

Drone Spin: Killing machine PR swarms US mainstream

Judge Napolitano on Government Killing Americans

Who Said You Can Kill Americans Mister President?

Obama’s kill list revealed

Is Obama a Mass Killer of Innocent Children?

Obama: Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list

DOJ Drone Memo: If Bush Attempted This Policy, Democrats Would’ve Called

DOJ White Paper on Drone Memo

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

John Brennan: The Nexus of Torture and Drone Assassinations

America’s War Drones Kill Over 800 Civilians – 200 Children – Casualties Of War

Obama Kill List Exposed: Leaked Drone Memo; Assassination of U.S. Citizens

Drone Strike Kills 4 In Pakistan

Attack of the Drones – USA

 Rise of the Machines – USA

Pentagon drones flying domestic; declaring war on your privacy?

Congress launches ‘Attack of the drones’

By Michael Isikoff National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”


But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Read the entire ‘white paper’ on drone strikes on Americans

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

Ask the experts: Drones

By Sydney Sarachan
“…How precise are drone attacks?RC: Pretty precise is my understanding.  If you think about it, a drone pilot first sits outside of a structure doing surveillance for a long time.  Upon getting the order, he or she delivers the missile from relatively nearby.  That is why some experts (for instance, American University’s Kenneth Anderson) argue that drones strikes may be more consistent with limits on collateral damage. It may also explain higher observed rates of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) in drone pilots. Of course, even manned missile attacks are often preceded by on-the-ground reconnaissance that paints a specific target.CF: This depends upon the kind of drone attack. In Pakistan’s FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) they are all intelligence-led (as opposed to “troops in contact”). On this, please see the other pieces I have written on this: Drone Wars  and Drones Over Pakistan – Menace or Best Viable Option?JF: Drones are extremely precise. The debate over their use has been whether they are accurate: whether they target the right people. In terms of precision, they do hit the targets we give them very consistently, we just don’t always know who that target is.RN: Since the answer to this question depends on how many civilians are killed or injured for each targeted “militant” who has been killed, it can’t be answered without answering the question of how many civilian casualties there have been.NW: Although missiles launched from drones may be more precise than some other weapons systems, they are known to have caused the deaths of hundreds of civilian bystanders.  The issue is less one of technical precision than it is the standards under which the U.S. government decides who may be targeted and how it protects civilian bystanders from death or injury, as it is required to do under international law.  Outside the context of armed conflict, the use of lethal force is illegal unless it is a last resort to avert a concrete, specific, and imminent threat.  Further, the government is obligated to take all feasible precautions to protect civilian bystanders from harm.  But those aren’t the standards that the government is using. The New York Times has reported that the U.S. “counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”  Regardless of the theoretical precision of drone attacks, when the government uses such flawed reasoning it will inevitably cause civilian bystander deaths, in violation of international law. …”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Terrorist Won: Faces of American Progressive and Neoconservative Fascists–Congressional Totalitarians At The Gates–Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Charges or Due Legal Process By Military–Tea Party Will Revolt–Videos

Posted on December 16, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

~Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

SA@TheDC – The Terrorists Have Won

SA@TheDC – Assassinating the Constitution

SA@TheDC – Does Newt Gingrich Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’

Farewell Bill of Rights

Any tea party supported representative, Senator or Representative, that voted for the NDAA section 1031 with the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without legal due process will be targeted for defeat in the next election.

These politicians apparently have never read nor understood the U.S. Constitution that they swore an oath to protect and defend.

The tea party people are going to be real upset when they find out about this.

Shame on Congress.

Defeat all politicians who voted for this!

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

S.1867 National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 – Indefinite Detainment of US Citizens

Martial Law NDAA Snatch Grab

Obama Signs NDAA Marial Law ∞ Legal Holocaust End of Human Rights Ron Paul Revolution

Obama’s Deception of the Indefinite Detention Bill

Military Could Detain Americans Indefinitely

“Shut Up. You Don’t Get a Lawyer!”: The Defense Authorization Act Guts Civil Liberties

Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens

Ron Paul – USA Is Setting Up For A Military Dictatorship *It Happened*

AMERICA IS GONE!! Listen to this… It is over! WAKE UP PLEASE!!!.

Treason in the US Senate

Sen. Kirk on Fox News talking detainee language in Defense Authorization bill

S. 1867 The End Of America

Sen. Jeff Merkley – Why He Did Not Vote For S 1867

Alex Jones: Senate wants martial law in America

Battlefield: America – Have the Terrorists Won?

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and The Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Every 10yrs)

Bringing the War of Terror Home

Indefinite Detention of Americans under New NDAA Bill

THE END TO OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC – RAND PAULS – NEW NDAA SENATE BILL

National Defense Authorization Act:The End of America

US Senate – Terror Detainee Policy

Stewart Rhodes: Senate Has Declared War on American People 1/3

Stewart Rhodes: Senate Has Declared War on American People 2/3 

Stewart Rhodes: Senate Has Declared War on American People 3/3 

JACL Director Floyd Mori: NDAA Bill is A Move Back to The Dark Ages 1/2 

JACL Director Floyd Mori: NDAA Bill is A Move Back to The Dark Ages 2/2

Three myths about the detention bill

By Glenn Greenwald

“…Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention …”

“… Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

“… Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill …”

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

Fascism

“…Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity, in which individuals are bound together in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.[3] To achieve this, fascists purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[3] Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, discipline and family policy (such as eugenics).[4][5] This state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government and other state institutions.[6] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition.[7]

Fascism promotes political violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[4][8] It views violence as a fact of life that is a necessary means to achieve human progress.[9] It exalts militarism as providing positive transformation in society and providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people’s character and creating national comradeship through military service.[10] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violent attacks on opponents or to overthrow a political system.[11]

Fascism opposes class-based identity and society, it is thus both anti-bourgeois and anti-proletarian; and individualist based identity and society.[12] It is opposed to many ideologies, including conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism: communism and social democracy.[13] It opposes a variety of economic, political and social systems, it is opposed to democracy, parliamentary systems, is anti-clerical, and holds a distinctive opposition to capitalism.[14] It rejects egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favour of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit and will.[15]

In economics, fascists oppose economic liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being class-based movements.[16] Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that advocates resolving economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[17] Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state; the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient; and autarky.[3] They are hostile to finance capitalism, plutocracy, the “power of money”, and internationalist economics.[3]

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[18][19] Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”[20][21] However they also officially declared that although they were “sitting on the right” they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to their basis of their views that they claimed could just as easily be associated with “the mountain of the center” as with the right.[22] There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides.[23][24][25][26] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://seg.sharethis.com/getSegment.php?purl=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondpronk.wordpress.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D52972%26action%3Dedit&jsref=&rnd=1324066895666

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Posted on August 26, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , |

First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?

Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”

Background Articles and Videos

Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Melanie Phillips–The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power–Video

Posted on May 3, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Climate, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Science, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

“The loss of religious belief has meant the West has replaced reason and truth with ideology and prejudice, which it enforces in the manner of a secular inquisition. The result has been a kind of mass derangement, as truth and lies, right and wrong, victim and aggressor are all turned upside down. In medieval-style witch- hunts, scientists who are skeptical of global warming are hounded from their posts; Israel is ferociously demonized; and the United States is vilified over the war on terror-all on the basis of falsehoods and propaganda that are believed as truth.”

http://www.melaniephillips.com/

 

Bill Bennett Interviews Melanie Phillips

http://media.townhall.com/townhall/bennett/MelaniePhillips.mp3

 

Jihad on Campus – Melanie Phillips (1 of 2)

 

Jihad on Campus – Melanie Phillips (2 of 2)

 

Melanie Phillips in Copenhagen, I / 6

 

Melanie Phillips in Copenhagen, 2 / 6

Melanie Phillips in Copenhagen, 3 / 6

Melanie Phillips in Copenhagen, 4 / 6

Melanie Phillips in Copenhagen, 5 / 6

Melanie Phillips in Copenhagen, 6 / 6

“One is disturbed each day by verifiably untrue statements touted as incontrovertible facts about hot-button issues. With cold, perceptive, exhaustive and persistent passion, Melanie Phillips dissects the phenomenon among disparate movements, to reach disturbing but compelling conclusions about the erosion of modern liberal society by ideologies whose surprising interconnections are meticulously identified. One can only hope that her book will penetrate the information cocoon into which many of our intelligentsia have sealed themselves.”
-Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT

“A brilliant tour de force, beautifully written and powerfully argued.”
-Norman Podhoretz, author of Why Are Jews Liberals?

“A trenchant sequel to George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. Melanie Phillips courageously flushes out today’s equivalents of Orwell’s targets-those who with indignant self- righteousness suppress free debate and liberty itself.”
-R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence(1993-1995)

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Melanie Phillips–Londonistan–Videos

Melanie Phillips ~ Question Time

 

 

Melanie Phillips (1/5)

Melanie Phillips (2/5)

Melanie Phillips (3/5)

Melanie Phillips (4/5)

Melanie Phillips (5/5)

Folly of embracing U.N. trans-nationalism: Melanie Philips on the Left’s psychological warfare

Londonistan – Melanie Phillips

Londonistan

Lecture by Londonistan-writer, Melanie Phillips, on Islam in the UK – part 1

Lecture by Londonistan-writer, Melanie Phillips, on Islam in the UK – part 2

Melanie Phillips: Obama Abandons Israel

Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips (born 4 June 1951) is an Orwell Prize winning British journalist and author. Her articles appear mainly in the Daily Mail newspaper and cover political and social issues from a conservative perspective; she has also written for The Guardian, and is a regular panelist on the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze and BBC One’s Question Time. She has authored four books, including most recently World Turned Upside Down in 2010. In 2003, The Guardian wrote of her that her “trademarks of social concern, pessimism about modern Britain and seemingly absolute certainty have made her – against stiff competition – arguably the most high-profile and prolific British pundit on moral and political matters.”[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Michael Barone–Our First Revolution–Videos

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Ron Chernow–Alexander Hamilton–Videos

Thomas J. DiLorenzon–Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for Americans Today–Videos

Joseph J. Ellis–His Excellency: George Washington–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Victor Davis Hansen–A War Like No Other–Videos

Peter Huber–The Bottomless Well–Videos

Donald Kagan–On The Origins Of War–Videos

George Lakoff–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Barack Obama Cartoon Concisely Communicates What’s Wrong With Progressive Radical Socialism–Why Do We Need Jobs For?–A Hayek and Mises Moment!

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

Melanie Phillips–Londonistan–Videos

James Piereson–Camelot and The Cultural Revolution–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Daniel Suarez–Daemon and Freedom TM–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Murry Rothbard–For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto–Audio Book

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Amity Shlaes–The Forgotten Man–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster–A Clear and Present Danger To The American People–President Barack Obama!

Thomas E. Woods Jr.–Meltdown–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

High Noon: Dueling Speeches–Cheney Demolishes Obama–Videos

Posted on May 21, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , |

 high_noon

High Noon

 

President Obama’s Speech: Protecting Our Security and Our Values. Part 1

 

President Obama’s Speech: Protecting Our Security and Our Values. Part 2

 

President Obama’s Speech: Protecting Our Security and Our Values. Part 3

 

President Obama’s Speech: Protecting Our Security and Our Values. Part 4

 

President Obama’s Speech: Protecting Our Security and Our Values. Part 5

 

(Part 1/4) Dick Cheney’s ‘He Deserves an Answer’ Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

 

(Part 2/4) Dick Cheney’s ‘He Deserves an Answer’ Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

 

(Part 3/4) Dick Cheney’s ‘He Deserves an Answer’ Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

 

(Part 4/4) Dick Cheney’s ‘He Deserves an Answer’ Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

Background Articles and Videos

Dueling banjos in Washington; Updated

By Michelle Malkin  

“… It’s the Obama-Cheney showdown this morning. I, for one, am gratified to see this White House forced to put national security on the front burner. If not for the forceful public defenses by Vice President Cheney of the aggressive, proactive measures the last administration took to keep us safe, the current commander-in-chief would be happily gabbling about solar panels and weatherization subsidies or somesuch.

National security is and always will be the Democrats’ soft spot. And they know it.

Which is why Team Obama scrambled to preempt Cheney’s AEI speech.

Which is why the same Senate Democrats who cheered so lustily when Obama declared his Gitmo closure date turned around and denied him the funds to implement it.

Which is why Obama is embracing the very same principles of preventive detention that the Left went bananas over for the past eight years.

And which is why you woke up this morning to news of one of countless terror busts whose results were, ahem, inherited by the Obama administration.

The men and women who worked tirelessly the past eight years to prevent and disrupt jihadist plots at home and abroad aren’t the ones who’ve “lost their way.” …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/21/dueling-banjos-in-washington/

 

Cheney Outshines Obama… Dear Leader Forgets Defense Chief’s Name During Security Speech

“…To Obama, surrendering Iraq to Al-Qaeda and the Iranians was a better security stance than building a democracy in the former Baathist regime. Obama denies the success of enhanced interrogation techniques despite the fact that the CIA confirmed that waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Led to Info that aborted 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles. Obama says Gitmo makes us unsafe but would release Uighur terrorists inside the US tomorrow if he could.
If it wasn’t clear before that Dear Leader is a committed moonbat, it should be after today’s speech.
Here’s Obama accusing the Bush Adminstration of being dishonest:

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

It would be nice if he for once could back up his attacks with specific instances where the Bush Administration “trimmed facts and evidence.”
It would be nice if he could back up his Far Left talking points before he accused the previous administration of lying.
How disgusting! …”

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/cheney-outshines-obama-dear-leader.html

 

Obama’s Blueprint and America’s Enemies

Despite the Talk, Adopting the Bush Approach

Andrew McCarthy

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and author of “Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad,” is legal affairs editor at National Review.

“…It is also not true, no matter how many times Mr. Obama and his supporters repeat it, that Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation (or “torture” as they call it) are primary drivers of terrorist recruitment. The principal exacerbating factor in recruitment is successful terrorist attacks. That is what convinces the undecided to join jihadist movements, and that is what the Bush administration’s approach prevented. And if the president truly insists on “transparency,” he should stop suppressing memoranda that detail the effectiveness of the C.I.A. interrogation program. Given his decision to reveal C.I.A. tactics, is it too much to ask that the American people be informed about what intelligence the program yielded? …”

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/obamas-blueprint-and-americas-enemies/#mccarthy

High Noon

“High Noon is an American 1952 western film directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly. The film tells the story of a town marshal who is forced to face a gang of killers by himself. The screenplay was written by Carl Foreman, based on John W. Cunningham’s pulp short story, “The Tin Star”.

In 1989, High Noon was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”, entering the registry during the latter’s first year of existence. The film is #27 on the American Film Institute’s 2007 list of great films. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Noon

Dick Cheney Redux: Liz Cheney Gives Us Round Two of Fear Mongering in MSNBC

Lawrence O’Donnell Goes Nuts Over Cheney’s Speech

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

CIA Old Boy Network–Walking Back The Cat–Barack Obama–Who Recruited Him and For What End?

Progressive Obama Values vs. Conservative American Values? Abortions–Over 50 Million American Babies Killed vs. Waterboarding–Millions of Americans Still Alive–Truth and Consequences

CIA Brainwashed Nancy Pelosi–Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) Get Results–Exhibit A Videos

The Big Obama Lie: CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Do Not Get Results and Are Torture–Release the Memos Detailing The Results of The Interrogation!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 615 other followers