BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

 
“E, I don’t think the President is trying so much to be a kiss-up to the Republican Party as he is trying to show that he cannot help it if the Republicans have decided they would rather be unprofessional and not fit to hold the offices they hold in Congress. Think about it. If he came down to their level, what would his credibility really look like? He’s still trying to show that he’s the President for everyone, no matter if some want to be ignorant. A lot of times people mistake kindness for weakness. NO, I am not looking at him through rose-colored glasses. I’m being realistic. He has a hard road to navigate, and his choices are bad and worst .”

Much of what you say is true, Rosemary, but that doesn’t explain why he’s circumventing not only the U.S. Constitution, but international law to give the Bush/Cheney regime a pass on their war crimes. He’s betraying a serious case of American arrogance by declaring that we need to look forward, and not backwards. He’s a constitutional scholar. He knows full well that’s not his call. He swore to uphold the Constitution, and through extension, the rule of law.

So as much as I like the president personally, I can’t ignore such a serious circumvention of the law, and blatant assault on American ideals. So I’m speaking out because I have a responsibility to speak out. It’s not just government’s role to uphold our values, that’s the responsibility of each and every American citizen. We cannot just sit back and expect justice to prevail – we must raise hell to see to it that it does. And we must always give principle priority over politics.  If it were not for malcontents speaking out on principle, President Obama would be in a cotton field instead of the White House.

The man that I though I voted for, and supported so passionately, would be the very first to recognize that his failure to adhere to the rule of law in this matter diminishes America. He’d understand that his failure to act creates a class of people who are above the law, and sets an ominous precedent that will allow future demagogues to act with impunity against both the American people, and the people of the world. Who’s to say that the next group of tyrants won’t start by rounding up ’suspicious’ Muslims, then Black Muslims, then Black people? Why shouldn’t they – we’ve set a precedent saying they can do it with impunity.  Obama is supposed to be protecting us from that slippery slope, but instead, his proposed course of action is to look the other way for political expediency.  That’s not a change I can believe in.

So some things are more important than worrying about providing political ammunition to the opposition. I’m more concerned about becoming so loyal to one man or ideology that we allow ourselves to be caught flat-footed like so many others throughout the course of history. I wonder how many families were destroyed by financial ruin after blindly opposing healthcare reform during the Clinton administration, for example; who put ideology and blind loyalty before common sense when some politician told them that healthcare reform constituted socialism?  Thousands I would guess. So if the Democrats were on their game, instead of anxiously caving in to the insurance industry, they would have gathered up some of these people and featured them in political commercials during this current debate.

Because yet again, the Republican leadership is using that very same tactic to manipulate their base. Yet again, they’re manipulating the people who have blind faith in their leadership to promote the status quo. And once again, they’re actively exploiting the concerns of their base over being displaced by minorities and having ’socialism’ disrupt the lives that they’ve come to know – even though many of them can’t even define socialism.

But while many of us on the ‘left’ like to make fun of these people as dim-witted (as I just did), I actively correspond with many people on the right, and they’re far from ignorant.  The fact is, many of them are quite intelligent. It’s just that they feel such a vested interest in refusing to accept the glaring reality before their eyes, that it’s causing them to cling to a group who is blatantly acting against their best interest. And if we’re not aggressively vigilant, the very same thing can happen to us.

Now don’t get me wrong, I doubt very much that President Obama is a demagogue. I think he’s a good man, and potentially a great president, who’s simply taking a course of action that I disagree with.  But then, the Republican base feels the same way about that people they support. But we can render this issue moot with a simple rule of thumb: We must never forget that we’re dealing with politicians. We must always remember that their very profession centers around the manipulation of smoke and mirrors, which makes it incumbent upon us to always hold their feet to the fire – liberal and conservative alike.

We must never allow ourselves to become so blinded by what a politician is supposed to represent, that we ignore what his actions say he actually represents. History has taught us that we must ALWAYS judge ALL politicians on what they DO, not what they say – and that includes Barack Obama.

So just call me cynical, but I need a very important question answered: If we’re willing to exhaust our treasury and sacrifice the lives of our youth to chase Osama Bin Laden for allegedly killing just under a three thousand Americans, how does that square with president Obama casually waving off the fact that Bush and Cheney killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children as inconvenient to address?

I have a problem with that kind of ‘justice’, as every American should, because it was done in our name. So as much as I like President Obama, simple logic tells me if he doesn’t have a problem with such a glaring injustice, I have to consider him a part of that injustice – an injustice that will never allow America to be completely safe.

This attitude that we have, and that President Obama seems to share, that the United States can walk away from the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as simply ‘collateral damage’ is nothing short of American hubris. And I cannot be comfortable with any president that’s willing to embrace such a philosophy, because as long as the lives of Iraqis are deemed unimportant, so is mine.

America needs to wake up. While we’re demonizing the people of Asia and the Middle East, we need to recognize that we wouldn’t even have a conflict with these people if we weren’t meddling in their part of the world. They’re not over here – we’re over there.  How can I break into my neighboor’s house, wipe out his family, and have my pockets filled with his possessions, then claim I was acting in self-defense?  There isn’t a court in a America would accept such a defense.

So America doesn’t have to spend trillions of dollars to protect our security. That money could be spent educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, and revitalizing our infrastructure. All we have to do is ‘just say no’ to the military/industrial complex, and stop meddling in the affairs of others.

Thus, when I look at President Obama, even in spite of how much I admire him, I have to ask myself, “doesn’t he know these things?” If he doesn’t, we have a problem with intellectual acuity. But if he does, we have a much more severe problem – why is he continuing to play a game that’s causing the death and suffering of so many people around the world?

So Rosemary, when I speak of President Obama caving in to the Republican party, I’m not just talking about on the single issue of healthcare; I’m talking about caving in to the status quo – which is much more serious, and goes directly to the issue of his overall character. During the campaign he promised change. That leaves me asking, where, and when?

Yes, many progressives in this country are mad as hell, and not just over a frivolous partisan issue. They feel lied to. They know that Obama’s not dumb. He knew exactly what message he was sending when he campaigned on change, and so do we - so we’re going to hold him to it. So while I reserve the right to criticize him, it’s not because I’ve turned on him, but because I’ve begun to recognize that he’s one of those great men that just may have to be dragged up Mt. Rushmore.

Tell Gaddis I said hi.

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/47MKGOPP4Zo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/47MKGOPP4Zo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It’s not that I hate everyone who doesn’t look, think, and act like me – it’s just that God does.

…Americans regard sexual infidelity as far more serious than invading countries on the basis of false charges and deception, invasions that have caused the deaths and displacement of millions of innocent people. Remember, the House impeached President Clinton not for his war crimes in Serbia, but for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Americans are more upset by Tiger Woods’ sexual affairs than they are by the Bush and Obama administrations’ destruction of US civil liberty. Americans don’t seem to mind that “their” government for the last 8 years has resorted to the detention practices of 1,000 years ago–simply grab a person and throw him into a dungeon forever without bringing charges and obtaining a conviction.

According to polls, Americans support torture, a violation of both US and international law, and Americans don’t mind that their government violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spies on them without obtaining warrants from a court. Apparently, the brave citizens of the “sole remaining superpower” are so afraid of terrorists that they are content to give up liberty for safety, an impossible feat.

With stunning insouciance, Americans have given up the rule of law that protected their liberty. The silence of law schools and bar associations indicates that the age of liberty has passed. In short, the American people support tyranny. And that’s where they are headed.

-Paul Craig Roberts

Over a momentous 10-day period in November 2009, a group of second-miler Patriots, with the assistance and protection of Divine Providence, did convene in St. Charles, Illinois, witnessed via webcast by the American public, courageously to give of their Spirit, mind and strength against great odds, not the least of which was the inescapable shortcomings and imperfections of the human condition itself as that inevitably falls short of man’s worthy highest ideals, for the purpose of communally acquiring a fundamental comprehension of the wayward state of our nation’s federal government as that contrasts with the limiting structure mandated by America’s Constitution as so wisely advanced by the Founding Fathers.

In light of a well-established record of twenty years of repeated and consistently rejected petitions to the United States Federal Government for redress of legitimate grievances, it did evolve that it was the unanimous will of the attending Body to generate a statement of Constitutional Standing by the People on behalf of the People of America that unambiguously delineates the many violations of America’s Constitution by the Federal Government; declares the consequent injuries suffered by the People; instructs to federal and state levels on necessary remediation to effect the restoration of our servant government as a Republic which is bound unwaveringly by the Constitution for the united States of America; and suggests to the Sovereign People of the Land just and honorable, actionable recourse to rightfully demand of their servant government adherence to the Constitutional Rule of Law.

It is with profound gratitude to and esteem for these second-miler Patriots that I post on my blog site the resulting “Articles of Freedom – The Works of the Continental Congress 2009″ published today, December 21st, 2009, at: http://cc2009.us/aof

At that website, you are invited to enter your “signature” among the growing number of Citizens making the following pledge:

“In full view of The Creator as my witness, I hereby pledge my signature, and vow to join with a goodly number of millions of Americans to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for all of their violations, with a firm reminder that each one has sworn an Oath (or Affirmation), to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution for the United States of America. In seeking to hold them accountable, I shall hold myself accountable to do the same.

We, the undersigned, renounce and condemn any and all INITIATION of violent force and will pursue all lawful and Constitutional means to fulfill our duty.


I place my name here and shall participate as an Eternal Record of the Will of the People to be Free.”

If you are so moved, after reading the Articles of Freedom, you are encouraged to share this historic document with your fellow citizens, friends and family, to finally enlighten the citizenry of what We The People may rightfully demand of our servant government, and of the truth of the legitimate rights, responsibilities, and privileges of the People as reserved to the People by the People as reflected within the American Constitution.

Your participation at this unprecedented, elevated crossroads in our nation’s history is crucial if all American Sovereign Citizens are to preserve our Land of the Free, are to preserve our Republic for which our enduring flag stands, and are to preserve the home of those brave sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, who have embraced the pride of military service and chosen harm’s way. For them, for your loved ones, and for your fellow man, you are encouraged to step up to the plate here at Home, and with one voice declare and affirm that you will not relinquish the People’s sovereign prerogative of exercising our God-given Liberties and divinely immutable Rights, the greater of these as enumerated within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Again, if you are so moved, the cost for the webcast of the Continental Congress 2009 has still not been completely met. Your donation will be greatly appreciated.

= = = = = = = =
Posted on November 11th, 2009

Be it Declared:

On This Day Forward, from November 11th to November 21st, 2009, the Time has arrived for a Free People, after careful, open and deliberate consideration of all Facts pertaining to the intransigence of the United States Federal Government to at all points hold faithful the Constitution for the united States of America and to give faithful redress to all petitions of grievances duly, diligently and lawfully rendered unto it over ample and reasonable time by the Sovereign Citizens of the States of the Constitutional Republic as represented by Delegates from each participating State to the Continental Congress of 2009 held in St. Charles, Illinois, to determine such course or courses of action as constituting responsible engagement of unalienable Right as conferred by the Creator upon each Sovereign individual in a Free Society and which therefore is in consonance with Reason harbored by intelligent, moral and Righteous men and women, that will effect that Resolution of such grievances as will result in the full and irrevocable safety, security, and tranquility of a nation of Sovereign individuals in the most expeditious manner. — Opey606

GIVEMELIBERTY.ORG

November 11th to November 21st, 2009 — AGENDA (pdf)

Live Stream: http://www.givemeliberty.org/CC2009/default.htm

To Defend, NOT Amend, the Constitution for the united States:

While snowbound over the weekend, I reread William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. I recalled a profound sense of awe from when I read it the first time in college, when students are invincible and optimistic. The second reading was still rewarding, but the message seemed darker, more true-to-life. Children on an isolated island devising their own schemes of democracy cannot repress the deep urge for self-advancement. When it comes to working together for the common good or promoting one’s own will, the latter wins out and seeks to destroy all dissenters. Anarchy becomes their natural state.

A few weekends ago I finally got around to watching V for Vendetta, the Wachowski Brothers’ dim and hopeful dystopia where individual conviction wears away at a conformity that benefits the privileged class. Recasting Guy Fawkes as a hero, albeit a tragic one, is a bold move in the post 9/11 world. The anarchy here leads to a rule by consent, the oppressed rising up as one to say “no more.” Even V is dead so there is no one to lead.

Better together?

Anarchy is a frightening prospect. Most people feel more comfort in the rule of law. One time I joined a discussion my brother-in-law was having with some friends on the rule of law. They were suggesting that if rule of law could be brought to bear on the Middle East then the seemingly continual crisis there might terminate. I disagreed from the far end of the table, not close enough to hear the whole conversation. My rationale is that the utter conviction of religion trumps the rule of law. Rule of law assumes all are equal, but religion in a monotheistic theater always assumes only one is right, and therefore superior. All others must submit. Problem is, many monotheistic religions feel the same way. We see it in the extreme power structure of the Religious Right in this country. Who is willing to say maybe the rule of law is superior to the rule of God? Watching the graceful anarchy of V, and reading the disturbing anarchy of Lord of the Flies, sometimes even the most stalwart free-thinker wishes everyone would bow to the rule of law.

(This is first of a series of conversations on the contemporary situation of Sri Lanka)

“The rebels were marked by their anarchic tendencies rather than in trying to fight back against what are evil in society with a view to create a better society. They showed a similar lack of concern for the security of human life as the state itself. Thus the situation that remained within the Sri Lankan context is one where murder is by the state as well as the rebels.”

 What we are facing in Sri Lanka today can be described without any exaggeration as a very crazy situation. There is hardly anything rational that an average citizen could expect from his society.

The saddest aspect of this craziness is the level of fear that is spread through the entire society. Nobody wishes to do what would normally be called the right thing or the better thing because of the type of repercussions that can be expected to their lives or the lives of their families.

Let us take the case of a doctor who sees the gross neglect that is around his patients. If he sees the lack of medicine or the lack of basic facilities he finds difficulty to speak and talk about these things. In private conversations he might. Otherwise he will not make any kind of visible protest in order to get things done.

It is the same about people in any other official positions. An average policeman may see the utter cruelty that may be done to people without any real justification. Still they will not interfere to do the right thing or to make a complaint about them. The expectation of a chain of irrational reactions which they are in no capacity to turn back into the makes people to withdraw and bear in silence the things which in normal circumstances they would not tolerate.

The complaint that one may be exposed to threats to their lives is so common. This kind of threat is behind the mind of everyone. And the very repetition in telling that such an event is possible itself generates a type of conversation about threats if one dares to do the right thing.

Everyone tries to take extraordinary precautions to remain safe. This is most visible with the parents with children who would no longer trust in the normal securities that may be available within the society for the protection of the young. Instead of belief in protection what the people have in mind are the awful kinds of things that generate distrust.

The most elementary guarantee that there should be in society is the guarantee against murder. What Sri Lankan society has failed to ensure for its citizens is this very guarantee. People engaged in any activity feel that they are exposing themselves to the risk of murder. It is in the very essence of the human species to look for self preservation. To be constantly under the threat of having to face the possibility of being murdered is the most serious threat that anyone can face.

Usually people who live under that kind of fear are those who themselves are engaged in the murdering of others or other such criminal activities. The average citizen in Sri Lanka lives today with the same mentality of fear as most ordinary criminals would only have in normal circumstances. That a law abiding citizen can live with the same mentality as an extreme law breaker is the clearest sign of the type of craziness that has been created within Sri Lankan society.

The first executive president of Sri Lanka, J.R. Jayewardene, said publically that the time has come for each person to look after his own security. Such a statement to come from the head of a state is the most glaring abdication of the powers of his position. The primary guarantees that a government should create within the citizens is that their lives are secure.

That the government is doing all it can to protect the basic right to life is the most elementary guarantee that a state should create within its population. When the head of a state says that there is no guarantee of that in Sri Lankan society then that is a clear indication of an abdication of the most fundamental guarantee that a government should give to its people. This means a basic betrayal of the very idea of governance and the denial of the most basic reason for the existence of a government.

The heads of state of the governments that came later have not tried in any way to alter this statement made by the first executive president of Sri Lanka. While national security is being talked about the security of the people is not an issue that the government shows any concern about.

The very talk on national security is that the security of any individual can be sacrificed for the sake of an abstract notion of what is called national security. The absolute powers given to the security apparatus to deal arbitrarily with the lives of the citizens is what in essence national security has come to mean. The abuse of the national security doctrine so that it can be used for the survival of the politicians at the expense of the entire nation is the transformation that Sri Lanka has witnessed in the recent decades.

In creating the mentalities for insecurity the various rebel movements have also played their role. When the very system of governance goes crazy, the type of rebel that is created within that system also becomes equally crazy. The rebels in the recent decades in Sri Lanka were not committed to transformations of society to make it a better and a more secure one. Instead they were involved in creating even greater havoc.

Thus the rebels were marked by their anarchic tendencies rather than in trying to fight back against what are evil in society with a view to create a better society. They showed a similar lack of concern for the security of human life as the state itself. Thus the situation that remained within the Sri Lankan context is one where murder is by the state as well as the rebels.

Thus in trying to understand the insecurities that exist within Sri Lanka and the resultant mentalities the loss of the guarantee of the security of life should be given the greatest consideration.

How Sri Lankans came to threat murder as matter of no great importance need to be considered carefully.

To be continued……..

Source: Conversations – Sri Lanka: A murder tolerating nation – Part One

I have read the President Barack Obama’s Nobel Lecture that he gave upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. In the Lecture, the President attempted to argue that warcraft can lead to peace. As I have argued before, war and peace are mutually exclusive. Further examination of the speech indicates that the President defines peace as adherence to U.S. values. The President’s performance indicates a peculiar definition of peace–follow the lead of the United States to avoid the wrath of sanctions or war from the United States.

The President made several points concerning his views of the righteousness of U.S. foreign policies (the U.S. had a gross domestic product (GDP) of $14 trillion–the largest economy in the world).

–War can make “peace” (peace is implicitly equal to adherence to U.S. policies).

–The United States cannot pursue its interests (deemed universal by the President) alone. Instead, the United States will pursue its interests with “international” (as gathered by the United States) support.

–Military action (or the threat of it) can be used to fulfill U.S. objectives.

–U.S. interests are equal to global security, which the United States underwrote with its soldiers’ blood and arms [The President's statement begs a question--who asked the United States to perform this sacrifice?]

–Short of military action, social disturbance or destruction must be used or threatened to achieve U.S. objectives.

–The President defines “peace” as that which is based on the inherent rights and dignity of each person (which are human rights, the right to speak freely, worship as one pleases, choose their own leaders, assemble without fear, democracy, and economic security and opportunity [presumably the U.S's rule of law beliefs].

As the reader can see, the President accomplished quite an accomplishment, convincing people that his speech was innocent, peaceful, and aspirational while it just brandished his iron fist policies.

To:  The Danish Parliament

See also: http://indymedia.dk/

Over the past week, tens of thousands of people from across the planet have taken to the streets of Copenhagen demanding real and just solutions to climate change. But on the streets, as well as inside the UN Climate Change Conference, delegates and ‘outsiders’ alike are doubting that the conference will reach a deal that isn’t a disaster for most of the world.

Inside the Bella Centre, where the UN delegates are meeting, numerous critical voices have been marginalised through technical and procedural manoeuvres. Others, like Friends of the Earth International, have had their accreditation revoked. Outside, the policing of protest has been consistently draconian and occasionally brutal.

On Saturday 12 December, almost 1,000 participants in a ‘Climate March’ through Copenhagen were arrested. On Monday 14 December, hundreds more were arrested at a party in the city’s Christiania district following a public meeting, addressed by Canadian journalist Naomi Klein and others. On Tuesday 15 December, Tadzio Mueller, a spokesperson for Climate Justice Action, was arrested by undercover police officers following a press conference at the Bella Centre.

This morning, on Wednesday 16 December, Tadzio appeared before a judge on a number of charges relating to his public support for today’s Reclaim Power demonstration. The declared aim of Reclaim Power – also supported by social movements, many conference delegates and other civil society actors – is to hold a People’s Assembly at the Bella Centre, to discuss real solutions to climate change. At this morning’s court hearing the judge decided to hold Tadzio for a further three days, after which he will reappear in court. There are reports that the hearing was closed to the public.

Meanwhile, hundreds more protesters have been arrested today and there have been numerous reports of police brutality and the extensive use of batons, pepper spray and tear gas. We have also heard of further arrests of individual activists by undercover police officers.

We, the undersigned, not only lend our support to those in Copenhagen seeking to push for real and just solutions to climate change, but also demand the following:
• The immediate release of Tadzio Mueller and all other climate prisoners;
• A halt to the criminalisation and intimidation of activists, including the pre-emptive detaining of protesters in Copenhagen;
• The immediate re-instatement of accreditation withdrawn from NGOs and other critical voices at the Climate Summit

(This Open Letter was drafted by the editors of Turbulence: Ideas for Movement, of which Tadzio Mueller is an editor.)

Initial Signatories (name and affiliation):
• Ben Trott (Turbulence editor)
• David Harvie (Turbulence editor, University of Leicester)
• Michal Osterweil (Turbulence editor, US based lecturer, UNC Chapel Hill)
• Keir Milburn (Turbulence editor)
• Rodrigo Nunes (Turbulence editor)
• Kay Summer (Turbulence editor)
• Naomi Klein
• Katja Kipping (Member of the German Bundestag)
• Ulla Jelpke (Spokeswoman for internal affairs of the faction DIE LINKE in the Bundestag)
• Alexis Passadakis (Member of the Coordination Committee of Attac Germany)
• Dr. Simon Lewis (University of Leeds and UN accredited science advisor in COP15)
• Emma Dowling (Lecturer, University of London)
• Ingo Stützle (editor, ak – analyse & kritik)
• Zoe Young (writer and film maker)
• Friends of the Earth International

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Citizen Paine

VIDEO: Howard Dean Tells Dems to Kill Senate Health-Care Bill by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet.

With no public option and no Medicare buy-in, the Senate bill is not worth voting for, the former DNC chairman tells “Countdown.” Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean would rather see no health-care bill than a bad one. So he tells MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.

Are Americans a Broken People? Why We’ve Stopped Fighting Back Against the Forces of Oppression By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet.

A psychologist asks: Have consumerism, suburbanization and a malevolent corporate-government partnership so beaten us down that we no longer have the will to save ourselves?

Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them? Has such demoralization happened in the United States? Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further? What forces have created a demoralized, passive, discouraged U.S. population? Can anything be done to turn this around?

Yes. It is called the “abuse syndrome.” Abusive pimps, spouses, bosses, corporations, and governments stay in control [by shoving] lies, emotional and physical abuses, and injustices in their victims’ faces, and when victims are afraid to exit from these relationships, they get weaker.

Does knowing the truth of their abuse set people free [from] abuse syndromes?

No. The truth of their passive submission to humiliating oppression is more than embarrassing; it can feel shameful — and there is nothing more painful. It is not likely that the truth of humiliating oppression [will] energize constructive actions.

Has such demoralization happened in the U.S.?

In the United States, 47 million people are without health insurance, many millions more are underinsured or a job layoff away from losing coverage. Despite the sellout by their elected officials to the insurance industry, there is no outpouring of millions of U.S. citizens protesting this betrayal.  And, the majority of Americans oppose U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry, yet only a handful has protested.

[In] the 2000 U.S. presidential election the Florida Supreme Court’s order for a recount of the disputed Florida vote was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a politicized 5-4 decision.  Justice John Paul Stevens remarked: “…the identity of the [loser] of this year’s presidential election…is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Even this provoked few demonstrators.

When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, …truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about [allowing] it, …[and make them] even more psychologically broken.

U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices [because]…they feel helpless to effect change. The more we don’t act, the weaker we get [and]… move to shut-down mode and escape strategies such as depression, substance abuse, …which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle of all abuse syndromes.

Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?

Maybe.

Shortly before the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush [joked] to a wealthy group, “What a crowd tonight: the haves and the haves-more. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base.” Yet, …citizens who had come to despise Bush and his arrogance remained passive in the face of the 2000 non-democratic presidential elections.  Perhaps the “political genius” of the Bush-Cheney regime was in their full realization that Americans were so broken that the regime could get away with damn near anything… [Even slamming] a boot on their faces.

What forces have created a demoralized, passive, discouraged U.S. population?

The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears.

The U.S. population is increasingly broken by the social isolation created by corporate-governmental policies. A 2006 American Sociological Review study (“Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”) reported that, in 2004, 25 percent of Americans did not have a single confidant. Social connectedness is disappearing in virtually every aspect of U.S. life. There has been a significant decrease in face-to-face contact with neighbors and friends due to suburbanization, commuting, electronic entertainment, time and money pressures and other variables created by governmental-corporate policies. Union and other ways that people support each other to resist oppression also decreased.

We are also broken by a corporate-government partnership that has [taken] control [of] basic necessities of life, including our food supply. We are broken by socializing institutions that alienate us from our basic humanity. A few examples:

Schools and Universities: Do most schools teach young people to be action-oriented — or to be passive? Do most schools teach young people that they can affect their surroundings — or not to bother? Do schools provide examples of democratic institutions — or examples of authoritarian ones?  School is nothing less than a miniature society: what young people experience in schools is the chief means of creating our future society. Kids learn to comply with authorities for which they often have no respect, and to regurgitate material they often find meaningless. These are great ways of breaking someone.

Mental Health Institutions: Aldous Huxley predicted today’s pharmaceutical society “[I]t seems to me perfectly in the cards,” he said, “that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.”  Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not comply with authority are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric drugs that make them less pained about their boredom, resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and manageable.

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is an increasingly popular diagnosis for children and teenagers [who] “often actively defy or refuse to comply with adult requests or rules,” and “often argue with adults.” A more common reaction to oppressive authorities is passive defiance – e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Virtually all children diagnosed with ADHD will pay attention to activities that they actually enjoy or have chosen. The “disease” goes away when ADHD-labeled kids are having a good time and in control.

When human beings feel too terrified and broken, they may stage a “passive-aggressive revolution” by getting depressed, staying drunk, and not doing anything — one reason why the Soviet empire crumbled. But, diseasing or medicalizing rebellion and drug “treatments” even weaken this power.

Television: In Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (1978), Jerry Mander compiled a list of the “Eight Ideal Conditions for the Flowering of Autocracy,” claiming that television helps create all eight conditions for breaking a population.

(1)   Occupies people so that they don’t know themselves — and what a human being is;

(2)   Separates people from one another;

(3)   Creates sensory deprivation;

(4)   Occupies the mind and fills the brain with prearranged experience and thought;

(5)   Encourages drug use to dampen dissatisfaction (while TV itself produces a drug-like effect, this was compounded in 1997 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relaxing the rules of prescription-drug advertising);

(6)   Centralizes knowledge and information;

(7)   Eliminates or “museumize” other cultures to eliminate comparisons; and

(8)   Redefines happiness and the meaning of life.

Commercialism of Damn Near Everything: Gross commercialization of spirituality, music, and cinema deadens their capacity to energize rebellion. So now, damn near everything – not just religion – is an “opiate of the masses.”

The primary societal role of U.S. citizens is no longer “citizen” but “consumer.” Citizens know that buying and selling within community strengthens that community and that this strengthens democracy, consumers care only about the best deal. Citizens understand that dependency on an impersonal creditor is a kind of slavery, consumers get excited with credit cards with a temporarily low APR.

Consumerism breaks people by devaluing human connectedness, socializing self-absorption, obliterating self-reliance, alienating people from normal human emotional reactions, and by selling the idea that purchased products — not themselves and their community — are their salvation.

Can anything be done to turn this around?

When people get caught up in humiliating abuse syndromes, more truths about their oppressive humiliations don’t set them free. What sets them free is morale.

What gives people morale? Encouragement. Small victories. Models of courageous behaviors. Anything that helps them break the vicious cycle of pain, shut down, immobilization, shame over immobilization, more pain, and more shut down.

The last people to turn to are mental health professionals. Specifically required talents are a fearlessness around image, spontaneity, and definitely anti-authoritarianism, which are not traits medical or graduate schools encourage.

If you want to feel hopeless, there are a lot of things you could feel hopeless about. If you act on that assumption, then you’re guaranteeing that’ll happen. If you act on the assumption that things can change, maybe they will. The only rational choice, given those alternatives, is to forget pessimism.

A major component of the craft of maintaining morale is not taking the advertised reality too seriously.

An elitist assumption is that people don’t change because they are either ignorant of their problems or ignorant of solutions. An elitist who has never been broken by his or her circumstances does not know that people who have become demoralized do not need analyses and pontifications. They need a shot of morale.  READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/politics/144529/are_americans_a_broken_people_why_we%27ve_stopped_fighting_back_against_the_forces_of_oppression

SPECIAL BONUS: A Global Philosophy for Successful Living in Eight Aphorisms.

From the BUDDHA: Go forth in joyful participation in the sorrows of the world.

From JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Follow your bliss.

From CHRISTIAN TRADITION: Practice the Golden Rule.

From GHANDI: Act. “Without action there is no result. You may not see the result in your lifetime, but if you do not act, there will be no result at all.”

From JACQUES COUSTEAU: Hope for the best. “I hope for the best, although I can’t say why.”

From TOM PAINE: Use Common Sense. “Reason is the most reliable path to the truth.”

From his holiness the 14th DALI LAMA: “If you want the best idea of how the world was created, don’t pick the best mythology, consult the best science.”

—————————
From FatLemon: “Keep on keepin’ on, and don’t forget to salute the man in the moon.”

LAST THOUGHT:  Don’t get mad, get even.  Fight harder.  Take back the Democratic Party and elect Progressives to all offices in the land.  Continue to fight the oppressive fascist powers.  Bill Hart stood for courtesy, courage, and justice.

Growing up in Africa, i was made to believe that criminals were a savage lot whose place in society – if they were ever caught or if the imprisoning officers were trustworthy enough not to accept bribes – was behind cells.

But behind this atypical belief was a very sad story that not all suspected thugs turned out to be real criminals. Some, especially in Uganda’s capital Kampala, turned out to be innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And there were those, who despite numerous warnings from authorities, made a habit of making away with what didn’t belong to them thereby endangering the lives of the innocents as well as their (criminals) victims.

Years on and in Europe, i have to put up with a similar case, this time though, from the other end of the story where a victim of the robbery ends up in prison with the criminal – walking free.

Just yesterday, a UK millionaire businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs who threatened to kill his family was jailed for 30 months – while his attackers continue to walk free.

Call it strange yes, but it is actually very true. Munir Hussain, his wife and their three children returning from a mosque during Ramadan, stumbled on three intruders, wearing balaclavas, in their home in High Wycombe.

The family were ordered to lie on the floor of the living room with their hands behind their backs. But as the thugs tied up four of them, Mr Hussain’s teenage son escaped through a window and managed to shout for help.

Realising the heist was about to go all wrong, the thugs made a splint. Mr Hussain then threw a coffee table at the third man, 56-year-old Walid Salem, hitting him in the face.

Meanwhile his brother Tokeer was chasing the other offenders down, and he did manage to bring one of them to the ground in a nearby garden.

What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far, leaving intruder Salem with a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces.

Judge Reddihough noted Mr Hussain’s ‘courage’ but said he had carried out a ‘dreadful, violent attack’ on the intruder as he lay defenceless.
Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident on September 3, 2008, but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment.

Salem, who has a string of 50 past convictions, was given a two-year supervision order at a court hearing in September this year.

But how careful should one be when stealing or when handling those he suspects to have or were in the process of stealing from him?

Munir Hussain was given a 30-month sentence, because Judge John Reddihough decided he had been subjected to more provocation than his brother, Tokeer, who was jailed for 39 months.

Judge Reddihough said Munir Hussain’s family had been subject to a ’serious and wicked offence’ and praised the bravery of his teenage son who escaped to raise the alarm.

The judge told them: ‘It may be that some members of the public, or media commentators, will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

‘However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.’

Sentencing the brothers, whose mother had died just before the incident, the judge added: ‘This case is a tragedy for you and your families.

And i say it is a tragedy to everyone of us – including criminals.

For as the judge continued, “Sadly, I have no doubt that my public duty requires me to impose immediate prison sentences of some length upon you.
This is in order to reflect the serious consequences of your violent acts and intent and to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands, or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended them.”

Sadly, this appalling and at the same time interesting story didn’t make Thursday 14, December 2009 10:00 BBC News!

Like my friend Scott said, “Anyone breaking into my home won’t just be ‘offending’ me – they’ll be risking their life.”

Simples!

The trust in commonly accepted norms and principles and laying these norms and principles by way of commonly accepted laws has been done with the view to prevent the possibility of interference by individuals in tampering with the basic rules of a society in order to achieve their own ambitions.”

A lawyer’s organisation has been formed in Sri Lanka under the name LAWERS FOR DEMOCRACY with a view “to emerge as a forceful voice to discharge the social obligations and the responsibilities of the lawyers for the protection and advancement of democracy, rule of law and human rights.” They have declared a charter for the purpose. The lawyers have recognised “that the legal profession in the country need to play a serious role at a time of crisis where due to the lack of respect for democratic values, rule of law and human rights the legal profession itself has been undermined.”

This organisation attempts to revitalise the positive and important role of the organisation for lawyers fighting for democratic values and thereby restrengthen the rule of law and human rights in the country. Indeed, the formation of the organisation at this time is itself recognition of the deep crisis of the rule of law that the country has been facing for many decades now. The rule of law has been challenged from many fronts. The country’s political system based on a system of excessive power placed in the hands of the executive president virtually undermines the parliament as well as the judiciary. The Sri Lankan president enjoys powers similar to those of monarchs of feudal times. All checks and balances that are recognised either within the American or French styles of presidency are both ignored in favour of a type of absolute power which is akin to the powers of authoritarian rulers and dictators.

When the ruler undermines the law

In modern times the structure of a democratic state is based on the recognition of the rule of law which means that all, including the highest officer of the state is under the law. No one is above the law is the basic premise under which the state is organised ever since the absolute monarchies were abolished in France, the United States and Britain. The principle that everyone is subjected to law is a binding principle that guides all aspects of an organised life within a system that is based on law.

What has been asserted in Sri Lanka, particularly since the adoption of the 1978 Constitution, has been the idea that the president can determine which laws can operate within the country and which laws can be dispensed with in terms of various circumstances. This power of the president to be above the law and also to decide which laws can be suspended without following any sort of procedures acceptable within a rule of law system virtually undermines, the confidence in the law in all walks of life.

The idea that the security of the state requires that the president should have the powers to suspend laws is based on a concept that the law itself is a threat to security. If the law itself is regarded as a threat to security there cannot be any guide as to what are the fundamentals around which the security of a nation could be protected. The granting of arbitrary powers to a president to decide which measures could be adopted and which measures can be undermined for the purpose of protection for the citizens virtually leaves the matter entirely in the hands of an individual. The very notion of the rule of law is based on the idea that no individual, however intelligent or however good that person may be should be trusted with absolute power is based on the recognition of human weaknesses and the propensity of human beings to abuse power whenever there is occasion to do so.

The trust in commonly accepted norms and principles and laying these norms and principles by way of commonly accepted laws has been done with the view to prevent the possibility of interference by individuals in tampering with the basic rules of a society in order to achieve their own ambitions.

Lawyers in a lawless society

What has happened in Sri Lanka has been to deviate from this fundamental notion. Deviation from this fundamental notion cannot be done without facing the consequences of the abandonment of such principles. The result has been that today in all areas of life there is uncertainty about the law. The rulers themselves are uncertain about which laws are operating in the country and as a result the judges, lawyers, bureaucrats and everyone else that had the duty to enforce the law are living in a situation where they themselves are not sure as to what the law is at a given time.

This operates worse in terms of the legal profession which has the duty to intervene with the authorities such as the police and other authorities in order to point out to them the limits with which these authorities have to operate. When, in fact, there are no clear limits laid down by the law itself, the lawyers are in no position to point out the limitations these authorities have in carrying out their obligations. A police officer that engages in arrest or in taking actions relating to detention and interrogation of persons are under normal circumstances bound by sets of laws. However, within the context of Sri Lanka the laws by which the police officers are to be guided in the event of arrest, detention and interrogation are no longer clear at all. The arrest can now be done by way of abductions or engaging in all kinds of secret procedures. No one is actually sure that the action taken by a particular police officer or any other state officer exercising the right of arrest have, in fact, have done this task within the framework of the law.

Assassinations after arrest

The situation becomes glaringly clear in terms of dealing with the right to life. It has become quite an accepted norm in Sri Lanka in the recent decades to assassinate an arrested person under any pretext to justify such an assassination. These assassinations are called by various names such as disappearances or extrajudicial killings or very often as actions taken in self defence in order to protect the lives of the police officers themselves. When the very fundamental norms of protection of life itself is no longer guided by strict laws known to everyone, naturally there cannot be any form of protection that is guaranteed within this kind of governance.

When the fundamental norms of arrest, detention and interrogation and the protection of life are no longer clear at all and are not made visible through laws known to everyone then, the very structure of criminal justice cannot operate within a framework of the rule of law. That is the extent of the crisis that the Sri Lankan legal system has been facing in recent decades.

Challenge to very survival of the profession

Under such circumstances what then is the role of the lawyers. This will be the challenge for the legal profession itself to grapple with in the time to come. If these problems are not grappled with the lawyer’s role becomes an ambiguous one and in most circumstances what that means is that the lawyers do not have any role at all. A lawyer will try to assert his role before the police or military may well be told by the concerned officers that the rules on which the lawyers insist no longer apply at all; and that they are obliged to reveal anything about the activities that they do. This, in fact, is the situation that the lawyers throughout the country is facing and this have been going on for many decades.

A timely move

The formation of a new organisation for the defence of basic norms and principles and values of the legal profession is very much a timely task. However, the challenge is a daunting one. This will require enormous intelligence on the part of the organisers of the new movement to face the problems that are today faced by the legal profession as a whole.

What the legal profession is faced with today is, without doubt, is about the very survival of the legal profession itself. At the moment this profession has been so undermined that it does not seem to be able to play any significant role in terms of the protection of the rights of persons in relation to arrest, detention, interrogations and the right to life itself.

Defending fair trial

Bound up with this is the role that is lost about fair trial. What indeed is a fair trial in terms of the Sri Lankan context? When the role of the accuser and the judge is played by the police or the security officers themselves to the point of the very disposal of life itself, the existence of a notion of fair trial within the society is very much in doubt. Besides this, of course, are the more traditional problems such as delays within the legal profession and the corruption that is associated with the system of justice in Sri Lanka. All these are problems that threaten the very existence of the legal profession.

Will the new association and the lawyers who have taken upon themselves the responsibility to face these problems prove themselves capable of dealing with these enormous issues? We would hope that they would be equal to the task and the society needs to give them full cooperation in dealing with these fundamental problems. These are not just the problems of the legal profession but indeed, the problems of the very survival of the society itself.

Source: The New Lawyer’s Organisation formed

OUR HERITAGE

What does it mean to be truly republican? History reminds us it was our party that demanded equality and liberty for Democrats’ slaves. One dictionary says republican as an adjective, is “having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them…” To be republican is to believe in the rule of law – in our case, respect for the Constitution.

Following the Civil War, African-Americans voted straight Republican ticket in 1866 and 1868 for two simple reasons: (1) they understood they were emancipated by Republicans and (2) Democrats would not allow them to vote Democrat.

Leading cinematic performers like Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne and Charlton Heston were proud Republicans. Ronald Reagan’s conversion from Democrat to Republican in the 1950’s is noteworthy. I became a Republican in 1980, moved to become a Reagan conservative by the follies of the Carter presidency.

Along the way, scandal has visited Republican and Democrat office holders alike. I believe the weakness of democracy is we easily elect scoundrels; its strength is its ability to rid us of them.

Since Reagan left office, distinctions between the two major parties blurred by broken promises and pork-barrel spending on both sides of the aisle.

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

Somewhere along the way, Democrat successfully and fraudulently came to be party of choice for racial minorities.

Joseph Phillips, writing for Townhall.com, says, “It was of course the Democrat Party that was late recognizing the wrongs of slavery; it was Democrats that wrote the Jim Crow laws and enforced them with fire hoses and attack dogs; it was the progressive hero Woodrow Wilson who segregated the federal government and locked Blacks out of jobs; it was the democrat party that filibustered passage of the civil rights acts of 1964 and ’65 and in fact has opposed every piece of civil rights legislation written since the end of the civil war.”

TEMPEST IN A T.E.A. PARTY

On the heels of the 2008 elections, conservatives like me, alarmed by the election of President Barak Obama and all he represents, coalesced into Taxed Enough Already (T.E.A.) parties held nationwide on April 15^th and July 4^th.

Locally, here in Rockwall County, Texas, our parties were events, a genuine grassroots movement with no treasury, no elected leaders, just patriotic Americans who love their country coming together to oppose fascism and socialism.

Elsewhere conservatives have gone beyond T.E.A. party events to actually forming a third party. Driven by fear and anger at a Democrat-controlled government that threatens to deprive us of our liberties and bankrupt our nation, this new party is fielding candidates and building organization.

Who are the T.E.A. Party patriots? We are Republicans and Independents who traditionally vote for Republican candidates, but we have become deeply dissatisfied with RINO (Republican In Name Only) candidates at every level of government: municipal, county, school district, state and federal.

If T.E.A. Party and Republican candidates compete separately, what can we expect? “Over my shoulder a backward glance”, as Paul Harvey would say, we know third parties split tickets. The 1992 presidential campaign is an excellent model for the “perfect storm” – a weak Republican candidate, George H. W.
Bush, and a fired-up United We Stand Party led by Ross Perot led to a minority president: Bill Clinton. Ross Perot satisfied his blood lust by keeping Mr. Bush from winning while fed-up conservatives “taught the Republicans a lesson”. I hope my fellow conservatives learn from history and choose not to repeat it.

GOP: Natural Home for Conservatives

While it is our natural home, we have unwanted squatters within: tax-and-spend liberals, RINO’s and narcissists who somehow think themselves equal to God. Regarding the latter, I know the Living God, the one mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and emblazoned on our currency – the narcissists and liberals are no substitute.

My fellow T.E.A. party patriots: are you fed up with runaway government, destruction of our economy and loss of liberty? Does history favor a third party? If you answer yes to the first, no to the second, what are you willing to do? I invite you to join me in revitalizing the Republican Party.

A dear friend recently wrote to me, asking me to talk with GOP leadership about the upcoming NPR gubernatorial debates. He wants Debra Medina to participate – I do not disagree. I asked him what he is willing to do. Is he going to contact GOP headquarters? Is he going to participate in local Republican leadership functions?

Influence cannot be delegated. If you wish to influence the party, you must participate in the party.

Locally, three Republican meetings are open to you.

Rockwall County Republican Men’s Club – meets every 2^nd Saturday, Harry Myers, 8 AM.

Rockwall County Republican Women’s Club – next meeting January 21, 2010, click here for details

Rockwall County Republican Party headquarters is conveniently located at 105 S. San Jacinto, Rockwall, 75087

Rockwall County Young Republicans encourages young adults to become involved in community leadership.

OUR FINEST HOUR

Some of us older folk see the 2010 elections as “now or never”, a possible “point of no return”.  What is your plan? Will you passively forfeit your liberties? Are you going to join a third party to “teach the Republicans a lesson”?

I suggest you teach yourself a lesson from history – make time for grassroots involvement and create your own future.

The following video of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 acceptance speech 0.

Same as it ever was: The Obama Administration is held in contempt for obstructing justice in the same way the Bushbots used to do. The courts, once again, slap a wrist but take no real action to make it stop. Maybe I’m just grumpy, but if a government prosecutor had disobeyed so clear and direct an order in MY court, his butt would’ve been in jail before lunch.

These are not grown-ups: Ben Nelson is now trashing the same Medicare-expansion proposal he, as part of the 10-senator negotiating group, helped create. He does not belong within a mile of any public office, ever.

Quote of the day, from House Appropriations Chairman David Obey: “I am damn tired of a situation in which only military families are asked to pay any price whatsoever for this war.” Yeah, I grasp the potential ramifications of that statement. Let’s HAVE that discussion.

Co-quote of the day, from Jason Linkins, on this week’s killing of al-Qaeda’s No. 3 guy, which is about the fourth time since 2001 we’ve killed al-Qaeda’s No. 3 guy: “It’s like we’ve gotten very good at killing Spinal Tap’s drummer.”