14 Points of fascism

[ausar64]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pt

14 points of fascism under george bush in the united states wake up and smell the fascism

14 Points of fascism

In his original article, "Fascism Anyone?", Laurence Britt (interview) compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identified 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. This page is a collection of news articles dating from the start of the Bush presidency divided into topics relating to each of the 14 points of fascism. Further analysis of American Fascism done by the POAC can be read here.

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

September 11 Freedom Walk

New Majority Leader: Iraq War “May Be The Greatest Gift That We Give” Our Grandchildren

Headstones of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are inscribed with the Pentagons war-marketing slogans

White House and the RNC are going to make a habit of using uniformed military personnel as props at Republican political rallies, despite the fact that it is a plain violation of military regulations banning politicization of the armed forces.

"You must glorify war in order to get the public to accept the fact that your going to send their sons and daughters to die." The inside story of the cozy relationship between big box office American war movies and the Pentagon

More...

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Bush threatens to veto $442b defense bill if Congress investigates detainee abuses.
Guantanamo Judge: “I don’t care about international law. I don’t want to hear the words ‘international law’ again. We are not concerned with international law.”
Rumsfeld to approve new guidelines that will formalize the administration's policy of imprisoning without the protections of the Geneva Conventions and enable the Pentagon to legally hold "ghost detainees,"
US 'preparing to detain terror suspects for life without trial'
U.S. oks evidence gained through torture
July 1, 2003: U.S. Suspends Military Aid to Nearly 50 Countries: because they have supported the International Criminal Court and failed to exempt Americans from possible prosecution.
US has at least 9000 prisoners in secret detention
More...

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Congressman: Muslims 'enemy amongst us'
SB 24, Ohio law to muzzle "liberals"
World history textbook used by seventh-graders at Scottsdale’s Mohave Middle School was pulled from classrooms mid-semester amid growing right criticism of the book’s unbiased portrayal of Islam
Rallies planned against 'Islamofacism': Event to 'unify all Americans behind common goal'

More...

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
If you haven't seen the Oreo flash animation yet, see it here

Bush’s Domestic Program Hit List

Bush slashes domestic programs, boosts defense. Arlen Spector calls it "scandalous"

Funding for job training, rural health care, low-income schools and help for people lacking health insurance would face big cuts under a bill passed Friday by the House

Pentagon to spend 75 billion for three new brigades


Three cable channels now feed news, information and entertainment about the armed services into millions of living rooms 24 hours a day, seven days a week: The Military Channel, the Military History Channel and the Pentagon Channel.
More...

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
It's legal again, to fire gov't workers for being gay
Bush calls for Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages
Bush refuses to sign U.N proposal on women's "sexual" rights
W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs.
The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a US$10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.
More...

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
FBI Acknowledges: Journalists Phone Records are Fair Game
Report shows U.S. government has been engaged in illegal propaganda aimed at its own citizens and the story gets only 41 mentions in the media
Free Press details recent governmental propaganda efforts, from faux-correspondent Jeff Gannon to paid-off pundit Armstrong Williams, and from the demise of FOIA to video news releases passed off as news. also... See a Whitehouse fake news release here (opens realplayer)
US seizes webservers from independent media sites
Bush's war on information: US editors forbidden to publish certain foreign writers

More...

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses
Bush Aides ADMIT 'stoking fear' for political gain: Bush adviser said the president hopes to change the dynamics of the race. The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry's ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush's image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate, aides said.
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level.

Keith Olbermann: "The Nexus of Politics and Terror."
Cheney warns that if Kerry is elected, the USA will suffer a "devastating attack"
GOP convention in a nutshell (quicktime)

Rove: GOP to Use Terror As Campaign Issue in 2006
More...

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Jerry Falwell cleared of charges that he broke federal election law by urging followers to vote for Bush
NC congressman proposes law making it ok to preach politics from the pulpit
Texas Governor Mobilizes Evangelicals
Family research council: Justice Sunday
Thou shalt be like Bush: What makes this recently established, right-wing Christian college unique are the increasingly close - critics say alarmingly close - links it has with the Bush administration and the Republican establishment.
Park Service Continues to Push Creationist Theory at Grand Canyon and other nat'l parks
More...

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
The K Street Project is a project by the Republican party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995, by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and House majority leader Tom DeLay.
American Conservative Magazine: One U.S. contractor received $2 million in a duffel bag... and a U.S. official was given $7 million in cash in the waning days of the CPA and told to spend it “before the Iraqis take over.”
There are 6 Congressional Committees investigating the Oil-for-Food (UN) scandal, yet not a single Republican Committee Chairman will call a hearing to investigate the whereabouts of 9 billion dollars missing in Iraq
Bush money network rooted in Florida, Texas: Since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, the federal government has awarded more than $3 billion in contracts to the President's elite 2004 Texas fund-raisers, their businesses, and lobbying clients
More...

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Labor Department warns unions against using their money politically
President Bush Attacks Organized Labor: Bush attacked organized labor Saturday, issuing orders effectively reducing how much money unions can spend for political activities and opening up government contracts to non-union bidding.
March 2001: President Bush signed his name to four executive orders on organized labor last month, including one that cuts the money unions will have for political campaign spending.
Congress and the Department of Labor are trying to change the rules on overtime pay, eliminating the 40 hour work week, taking eligibility for overtime pay away from millions of workers, and replacing time and a half pay with comp days.
More...

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Bush's new economic plan cuts funding for arts, education
Artists from all over the world are being refused entry to the US on security grounds.
A group of more than 60 top U.S. scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisers to past Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes
Freedom of Repression: New ruling will allow censorship of campus publications
More...

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations
American Gestapo is here: "There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.'"
America: secret jails, secret courts, secret arrests, and now secret laws
Snitch-or-Go-to-Jail bill will make pretty much anything short of reporting on everyone you see for doing just about anything a jailable offense. With minimum sentences, up to and including life without parole.
The problem with Gonzales is that he has been deeply involved in developing some of the most sweeping claims of near-dictatorial presidential power in our nation's history, allowing him to imprison and even (at least in theory) torture anyone in the world, at any time
Police officers don't have to give a reason at the time they arrest someone, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a ruling that shields officers from false-arrest lawsuits.
More...

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Bush Cronyism: Foxes Guarding the henhouse
Making Sense of the Abramoff Scandal
If Bush's pick is confirmed, that will mean the five top appointees at Justice have zero prosecutorial experience among them.
Iran-Contra Felons Get Good Jobs from Bush
Big Iraq Reconstruction Contracts Went To Big Donors
Bush Wars -- Crooks Get Contracts : The main companies that were awarded billions of dollars worth of contracts in Iraq have paid more than $300 million in fines since 2000, to resolve allegations of fraud, bid rigging, delivery of faulty military equipment, and environmental damage.
US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) lost track of $9 billion
"Contracting in the aftermath of the hurricanes has been marked by waste, corruption and cronyism"
More...

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Rolling Stone does some investigative and rather exhaustive digging into public documents and says we’re almost guaranteed the 2004 election results were massively rigged
Powerful Government Accounting Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings
Conyers hearing in which Clinton Curtis testifies that he was hired to create hackable voting machines (.wmv)
The Republican Party has quietly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide private defense lawyers for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to keep Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
The Conyers Report (.pdf)
No explanation for the machines in Mahoning County that recorded Kerry votes for Bush, the improper purging in Cuyahoga County, the lock down in Warren County, the 99% voter turnout in Miami County, the machine tampering in Hocking County
Less access than Kazakhstan. Fewer fail-safes than Venezuela. Not as simple Republic of Georgia. The 2004 Elections according to international observers.
This picture is what stopped the ballot recounts in Florida shortly after it seemed that legitimate President Gore had a lead. The "citizens" started what was later called "the preppy riot". Screaming, yelling, pounding on the walls, these "outraged citizens" intimidated the polling officials to halt the court mandated recount. A closer look reveals who they really were. They were bussed and flown in at Republican lawmakers expense. Some even flew in on Tom Delay's private plane.

More...




If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" what does that make the K Street project?


Related Articles:

"Now and Then"- Part 1 A 3 part series by W David Jenkins III on the similarities between America now and Germany post Reichstag fire
Click here to purchase this image on POAC merchandise


"Now and Then"- Part II: The Propaganda Machine
Now and Then- Part III
Hitler's Playbook: Bush and the Abuse of Power
It may sound crazy to some, but the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism.
Is America Becoming Fascist?
Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt
The Danger of American Fascism:
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
Sheila Samples: Freedom To Fascism -- A Bumpy Ride: Republicans don't seem to realize that they are no longer individual members of a coherent "party," but are merely part of a mean-spirited and dangerous movement that is threatening to sweep away democracy as we know it.
Germany In 1933: The Easy Slide Into Fascism
The Brownshirting of America: Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US – truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports – as treasonous America-bashing.
Fascism then. Fascism now? When people think of fascism, they imagine Rows of goose-stepping storm troopers and puffy-chested dictators. What they don't see is the economic and political process that leads to the nightmare.
What is Fascism? Some General Ideological Features
Hello. You are now living in a fascist empire
Neo-fascism in America : Too many people believe fascism is only about goose-stepping, jack-booted Nazis. Too many people believe that American democracy is so strong that fascists could never take control of America. If you are sympathetic to those views, I invite you to consider the possibility that you are mistaken.
It is in times of fascism rising that armies of ignorance are once more resuscitated from the bowels of a society bordering on the edge of mass psychosis. The America at the dawn of the twenty-first century is no exception...
Republican Party Brown Shirts: "The Wide-Awakes": The organization was known for virulent anti-Catholicism, secretive rituals, and a military-style organization complete with "officers" and units.
Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State
They Saw It Coming: The 19th-Century Libertarian Critique of Fascism
Victims of Creeping Fascism: We are witnessing nothing less astonishing than the demise of the American experiment. 12-20
The ten phases of a Bush scandal. 12-22
America is headed for a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush’s second term.

Download the informative trifold pamphlet of these 14 points in .pdf format here (right click, save target as)

 

[muckraker10021]

<font face="arial black" size="4" color="#D90000">

Is There Any Doubt, Anymore
About What's Happening To America Under This Bush Junta??? <img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10024/Meet+Our+Greatt+Leaders.JPG"><img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg">
</font>


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="14"></hr>


[FLASH]http://www.bushflash.com/swf/14.swf[/FLASH]




<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="14"></hr>

 

[Mo Pizorn]

No.
They don't even hide it anymore.

 

[oneofmany]

The problem you run into these days is apathy. Some folks deny the reality of American fascism outright and those who do recognize something terrible is wrong with the country, shrug their shoulders and go back to watching American Idol. In the past, people held views such as, "It could never happen here" and now as those views are fading, an equally disturbing view is arising in the likes of, "It's not fascism if we do it (but it's fascism if they do it)."

 

[The Dark Mind]

Ok it's official...

You guys are

FULL OF SHIT!!!

Yet again some more people who outright HATE this country.

Ok here it goes...
Two points....

Point one.

If this country was so "fascist" how come people can protest and constantly put out speeches and garbage like this?

And..
Point two

If you can find a country better this one,
one that is not as so "fascist" as you put it,
for Christ-sakes why don't you buy a ticket and move to it?

And leave the rest of us who like this country the HELL alone!!!

You wanna know why you don't?
Because no matter how bad you say this country is,
you KNOW this is the BEST and FREE-EST country on the planet.

And if it wasn't so, your ASS would've left already!!!

 

[APOPHIS]

Good post.

 

[oneofmany]

Ok it's official...[

Official, you say?

You guys are

FULL OF SHIT!!!

If you say so.

Yet again some more people who outright HATE this country.

Criticism is not hatred. The refusal to admit one's faults is a great flaw. People with this flaw are often quick to say people "hate this" or "hate that," when those people are actually showing hatred of honest, open-minded debate.

Ok here it goes...
Two points....

Let's hear it.

Point one.

If this country was so "fascist" how come people can protest and constantly put out speeches and garbage like this?

Protesting and free speech in America has been getting cracked down on as of late. Fascism does not happen all at once. The United States of America is not Nazi Germany. What people are saying is America is becoming less free and is slowly moving in that direction. Which is a simple point because if things like the Patriot Act and other bills are passed which restrict or remove freedoms, you can't say in the climate of losing rights that somehow you are more free with less freedom.

And..
Point two

If you can find a country better this one,
one that is not as so "fascist" as you put it,
for Christ-sakes why don't you buy a ticket and move to it?

This is a horrible argument. Instead of leaving, those who love their country might want to stay and fight. Running away isn't always the answer. Telling people who disagree with you to leave is not only rigid, but also intolerate of differing views. If America is supposed to be about diversity, this "get the hell out of here" debating tactic is disgraceful and needs to disappear.

And leave the rest of us who like this country the HELL alone!!!

A person can be very critical of their government and still love their country. Loving your country doesn't have to mean being above criticizing it and holding an overly idealistic view of your homeland. If you truly loved something, you'd probably be honest about it's strengths and weaknesses. It's about seeing the whole picture and not just patting yourself on the back with thoughts of, "But we're the best country in the world."

You wanna know why you don't?
Because no matter how bad you say this country is,
you KNOW this is the BEST and FREE-EST country on the planet.

Some people were simply born in this country and don't have the money to leave. Plus with certain trends occurring in other parts of the world, it's harder to escape the clutches of fascism than one might think. Which is precisely why some people prefer to fight, than to possibly move country to country and be on the run. You can run or face the problem head-on.

And if it wasn't so, your ASS would've left already!!!

As described above, this reasoning is not accurate for many and certaintly not in my case.

 

[African Herbsman]

Those big letters don't mean shit.

 

[The Dark Mind]

Official, you say?

Yes official, I say.

And I still stand by my statement that you guys are full of shit.

If you say so.

I do.

Criticism is not hatred. The refusal to admit one's faults is a great flaw. People with this flaw are often quick to say people "hate this" or "hate that," when those people are actually showing hatred of honest, open-minded debate.

Nice try.
You are not engaged in criticizing.
You are engaged in denouncing.

There is a difference

It never ceases to amaze me how people can come in and badmouth the country, and then when called on it, try to hide behind “criticism”. No my friend this is not a critique, this is a denouncement.


Quick Explanation…
Although in the Webster’s dictionary the words criticize and denounce are synonyms the Webster’s does make the distinction between the two.

Webster’s dictionary
----------------------
crit•i•cize
verb
1. To find fault with, point out the faults of: example: criticized the decision as unrealistic. See Usage Note at critique.
2. To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.

cri•tique
noun.

1. A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature.
2. A critical discussion of a specified topic.
3. The art of criticism.

----------------------
de•nounce
verb
1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.

Protesting and free speech in America has been getting cracked down on as of late.

This is a lie. No one has been prevented from marching, protesting, or criticizing the government. As a matter of fact, anyone who has been following the liberal movement, or watching shows such as Democracy Now, knows that protests are actually quite common, and have gone on quite unimpeded.

Fascism does not happen all at once. The United States of America is not Nazi Germany. What people are saying is America is becoming less free and is slowly moving in that direction. Which is a simple point because if things like the Patriot Act and other bills are passed which restrict or remove freedoms, you can't say in the climate of losing rights that somehow you are more free with less freedom.

This further proves my point. You are not criticizing or critiquing the patriot act (i.e. pointing out its good points and its flaws), you’re denouncing it. You won’t say that some of the patriot act is necessary and let’s deal with its flaws; instead you basically castigate the patriot act all together.

What’s worse, you do so without even acknowledging that a large swath of the country does not agree with you.

This is a horrible argument. Instead of leaving, those who love their country might want to stay and fight. Running away isn't always the answer.

Ok, this is in fact the dumbest part of you argument. This is the same argument that the Jews used for not leaving fascist Germany. If America is in fact becoming fascist like Germany was, history already proves that staying in a country that is turning fascist is suicide. Millions Jews found this out the hard way.

Telling people who disagree with you to leave is not only rigid, but also intolerate of differing views.

Again you are trying to hide behind catch phrases such as “differing views” to hide your contempt for the government and the country.

But ok, I’ll play

Let’s see...
If I believe that America is the best country on earth, but just has some flaws,
and you have a “differing view”, then that means by default
that you don’t believe America is the best country on earth, but just has some flaws.

However this is what I’ve been saying from the get go. I’m happy you finally owned up.

If America is supposed to be about diversity, this "get the hell out of here" debating tactic is disgraceful and needs to disappear.

Wait, we can’t be about diversity! We’re turning into a fascist country remember???

Geez, you’re falling over your own argument. People like you always do.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t argue that this is a fascist country, and oh we are about diversity too.
You have to choose one or the other.

A person can be very critical of their government and still love their country.

Again it’s not what you do but why you do it.

Are you criticizing your country because you love it and you want to keep it strong?

Or are you criticizing, i.e. denouncing it just to point out what a horrible place it is?

If you truly loved something, you'd probably be honest about it's strengths and weaknesses.

I agree. According to Webster’s that would be called a critique. But again that would be pointing out strengths as well as weaknesses. When you only point out the bad, or point out the bad in incorrect proportion to the good, you cannot be said to be engaging in a critique.

Loving your country doesn't have to mean being above criticizing it and holding an overly idealistic view of your homeland. If you truly loved something, you'd probably be honest about it's strengths and weaknesses. It's about seeing the whole picture and not just patting yourself on the back with thoughts of, "But we're the best country in the world."

That’s my point. If you love your child you would talk about the good and the bad. But whether you do this or not depends on what is your motive in the first place. Why?
BECAUSE MOTIVE MATTERS!

Some parents love their children and criticize to make their child to make them better.
They keep their critiques in proportion, as not to tear down the child’s esteem and paint a false picture in that child’s mind.

Other parents don’t really like their children at all and use every chance they get to criticize, beat down and tear down their self esteem. (Unfortunately I personally know about this I had a stepparent that was this way. It sucked in a real shitty type of way.)

And yes…
People do know the difference.

-------------------
Again as I said, some parents love their children and criticize to make their child to make them better. They keep their critiques in proportion, as not to tear down the child’s esteem. If the child is 9% bad and 91% good, you wouldn’t spend 91% of your time pointing out your child’s flaws. It would paint an incorrect picture in your child’s mind.

The same is true when you’re talking about a country.

What it seems like to me is, you guys mainly focus on the bad.
I’ve read through BGOL posts for a while. I almost never see any pro-America / America-is-great posts. Only how bad this country is. The same is true with liberals and the Democratic Party. Nobody’s arguing that the country doesn’t have flaws; we do live in the real world after all. But when you spend 90% of the time badmouthing a country, it’s sort of hard to walk away not believing that you think that the country is 90% bad. And if you think the country is 90% bad, that’s not a critique, that’s denouncement.

Some people were simply born in this country and don't have the money to leave.

That a load of bull. Canada’s to the north, Mexico’s to the south. Pick one.

Plus with certain trends occurring in other parts of the world, it's harder to escape the clutches of fascism than one might think.

Ahh, but they still must be better than here right???

Which is precisely why some people prefer to fight, than to possibly move country to country and be on the run. You can run or face the problem head-on.

As described above, this reasoning is not accurate for many and certaintly not in my case.

From your own words you’ve just proven that this reasoning is accurate, especially in your case. I’m just sorry you can’t see it.

 

[oneofmany]

Yes official, I say.

Be careful.

And I still stand by my statement that you guys are full of shit.

If you seek to stereotype us all, may you come in reason and stand your ground in the name of the truth. You made your judgement and I reject it.

I do.

Indeed.

Nice try.
You are not engaged in criticizing.
You are engaged in denouncing.

There is a difference

I am not engaged in constructive criticism but denouncing because you say so.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can come in and badmouth the country, and then when called on it, try to hide behind “criticism”. No my friend this is not a critique, this is a denouncement.

This thread is not flame bait by any means.

Quick Explanation…
Although in the Webster’s dictionary the words criticize and denounce are synonyms the Webster’s does make the distinction between the two.

Webster’s dictionary
----------------------
crit•i•cize
verb
1. To find fault with, point out the faults of: example: criticized the decision as unrealistic. See Usage Note at critique.
2. To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.

cri•tique
noun.

1. A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature.
2. A critical discussion of a specified topic.
3. The art of criticism.

----------------------
de•nounce
verb
1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.

When a person calls America fascist and leaves it at that, that is denouncing a country. When a person calls America fascist and lists each and every point of fascism (this thread is about the 14 points of fascism and has analysis), that is criticism.

This is a lie. No one has been prevented from marching, protesting, or criticizing the government. As a matter of fact, anyone who has been following the liberal movement, or watching shows such as Democracy Now, knows that protests are actually quite common, and have gone on quite unimpeded.

It is not a lie. When you speak about freedom of speech, that seems odd considering there are "free speech zones" where freedom of speech is limited. These zones keep protesters out of certain areas or at the very least, effectively silence them. The press as we know it seems intimidated by the current administration. It is embarassing for a democracy when being candid or simply speaking the truth is seen as a heroic act (in a free society being open as such should not only be common but also expected). On various blogs across the web, when a person goes on a show and simply says, "I think 9/11 was an inside job" or whatever else, people look on with awe. When things occur like microphones being cut on shows (Jeremy Glick), I wonder if such a person was really given a chance at free speech. It seems more like a tightening of a grip to me.

Slowly but surely,

This further proves my point. You are not criticizing or critiquing the patriot act (i.e. pointing out its good points and its flaws), you’re denouncing it. You won’t say that some of the patriot act is necessary and let’s deal with its flaws; instead you basically castigate the patriot act all together.

The Patriot Act strips people of their rights by allowing the government to remove civil liberties. When physical searches and electronic surveillance are increased, being done in a wider scale, you have to ask yourself if that truly catches terrorists. Unless loads of terrorists are being caught, the average civilian is being treated like a terrorist because now he is being watched closer and can't do this or that.

What’s worse, you do so without even acknowledging that a large swath of the country does not agree with you.

Whether the majority of people support or reject the Patriot Act does not change my personal issues with the act itself. I'm not basing my personal opinion for being against the Patriot Act by looking to other people. Whether the bill itself is worthy is a matter solely about its virtues and worthiness, not with the "large swath of the country" which would not agree with me.

Ok, this is in fact the dumbest part of you argument. This is the same argument that the Jews used for not leaving fascist Germany. If America is in fact becoming fascist like Germany was, history already proves that staying in a country that is turning fascist is suicide. Millions Jews found this out the hard way.

And history would then repeat itself if America did indeed become more fascist and folks remained. What would be surprising about history possibly repeating itself? History has repeated before and quite frankly, certain aspects of history could well repeat again.

Again you are trying to hide behind catch phrases such as “differing views” to hide your contempt for the government and the country.

Why hide contempt? Contempt is contempt. If I hate something, I say I hate it. Period. The country and the government are different things. Disliking one doesn't mean you have to dislike the other and vice versa.

But ok, I’ll play

Please do.

Let’s see...
If I believe that America is the best country on earth, but just has some flaws,
and you have a “differing view”, then that means by default
that you don’t believe America is the best country on earth, but just has some flaws.

If I believe America has flaws, I believe America has flaws. Whether a country is the best or worst, if it has flaws, it has flaws and you can mention those flaws without necessarily saying you think that country is the best or not. People are quick to see a criticism of America and think, "Oh, he must think America is one of the worst countries around." I remember being in a store once and Bush was talking on the television. I asked the guy next to me, "Do you believe a word he said," and the guy leaned close to me and whispered, "No, but I have to be quite because I don't want to appear like I hate this country." Why did I mention this story? It has parallels to your lines above. There are people quick to associate dissent, criticism and protest with hate/contempt. Some guys out there are haters but not all of them, so I wish this association and assumption would fade away.

However this is what I’ve been saying from the get go. I’m happy you finally owned up.

Non-sequitor. This has nothing to do with my argument, nor with what I was saying. You seek to pigeon-hole me and have me "own up" hatred and contempt, to prove your line of thinking.

Wait, we can’t be about diversity! We’re turning into a fascist country remember???

You are right. America never could be diverse if people with differing views left. Because if they left, the country would only be filled with people who see things and think in the same manner (because the disenters needed to leave, as in your sentiment above).

Geez, you’re falling over your own argument.

On the contrary. I had a good argument, while you never had one.

People like you always do.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t argue that this is a fascist country, and oh we are about diversity too.
You have to choose one or the other.

Rushed thinking. Uninterrupted fascism would choke diveristy until none is left. America is not in a fully accomplished state of fascism, hence reminents of the past (i.e., diversity) still remain. Though if the current course were to go unchecked, diversity as we currently know it would not exist.

Again it’s not what you do but why you do it.

Are you criticizing your country because you love it and you want to keep it strong?

Or are you criticizing, i.e. denouncing it just to point out what a horrible place it is?

I love certain ideals of America. The fire (criticism) comes from a love of protecting what is and a desire to see that improve.

That’s my point. If you love your child you would talk about the good and the bad. But whether you do this or not depends on what is your motive in the first place. Why?
BECAUSE MOTIVE MATTERS!

Some parents love their children and criticize to make their child to make them better.
They keep their critiques in proportion, as not to tear down the child’s esteem and paint a false picture in that child’s mind.

Other parents don’t really like their children at all and use every chance they get to criticize, beat down and tear down their self esteem. (Unfortunately I personally know about this I had a stepparent that was this way. It sucked in a real shitty type of way.)

And yes…
People do know the difference.

I grew up being heavily criticized. The good things you speak of were rare and in some cases, nonexistant for me. That said, I never doubted being loved or the motives of the people around me. Sometimes you talk about the good and the bad, but there are some times when it's just mostly the bad (which would signal cases of serious matters, where things are bad and there isn't any or much good to talk about).

Again as I said, some parents love their children and criticize to make their child to make them better. They keep their critiques in proportion, as not to tear down the child’s esteem. If the child is 9% bad and 91% good, you wouldn’t spend 91% of your time pointing out your child’s flaws. It would paint an incorrect picture in your child’s mind.

I agree that you have to be careful. But like I said earlier, it was uneven in my case but I am okay. When you bring things up to people to debate them and what not, a good debate typically has many sides, many views and endless possibilities. But some discussions are more one-sided than others.

The same is true when you’re talking about a country.

What it seems like to me is, you guys mainly focus on the bad.
I’ve read through BGOL posts for a while. I almost never see any pro-America / America-is-great posts. Only how bad this country is. The same is true with liberals and the Democratic Party. Nobody’s arguing that the country doesn’t have flaws; we do live in the real world after all. But when you spend 90% of the time badmouthing a country, it’s sort of hard to walk away not believing that you think that the country is 90% bad. And if you think the country is 90% bad, that’s not a critique, that’s denouncement.

The shift in general sentiment (posts) could signify a change in this country, or at least, a major change in the perception of this country. If somebody thinks someone or something is taking a major turn for the worse, then the vast majority of what will be said will probably be negative. The real question is whether or not these changes are negative or not. If these changes are not negative, then people are complaining about nothing and wasting their time. But if people have some legitimate concern about some of these issues, then expressing that concern is perfectly okay as long as its genuine.

For the record, I see Democrats on certain sites bashing America to no end. Occasionally, some conservatives do the same. But I'm not a Republican or Democrat. So I don't have a made up, predetermined side on all issues where my mind is already made up on everything. If threads about fascism, immigration, economics, wars, and other issues come up, negativity is to be expected. If I came into a thread about fascism or something of the like, I should expect to see the gauntlet laid down. If this thread was about something positive and guys were still throwing shots at the country, then I'd be mad.

That a load of bull. Canada’s to the north, Mexico’s to the south. Pick one.

I know people born in cities where they never left their side of town, never saw other cities in their state, never left the region of the country in which they were born and died without ever visiting another land. In fact, some of those people were those in my family. Getting up and moving isn't easy. Some guys struggle moving within their own city or moving around their state or moving across their country. Telling those same people to leave their country outright would be impossible in some cases.

Ahh, but they still must be better than here right???

Who knows if they are better or not. Some countries may very well be better, while others would be worse. Putting dualistic thinking aside for a second, the bigger picture might be that other countries would simply be different. For certain people, something different may be all they want or need.

I’m just sorry you can’t see it.

It's okay. You have your views and I have mine. That said, I do understand where you're coming from. I just happen to see things differently.

 

[The Dark Mind]

Be careful.

No it is you, who should be careful.

If you seek to stereotype us all, may you come in reason and stand your ground in the name of the truth. You made your judgement and I reject it.

There is no stereotyping here, just a statement of fact.

Indeed.

Good. It's nice to see that you are in agreement with me.

I am not engaged in constructive criticism but denouncing because you say so.

No, you are not engaged in constructive criticism but denouncing because Webster's said so.

The definitions of the words are what they are.

If you have a problem with them, feel free to contact Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Company.

This thread is not flame bait by any means.

I never claimed that it was.

When a person calls America fascist and leaves it at that, that is denouncing a country. When a person calls America fascist and lists each and every point of fascism (this thread is about the 14 points of fascism and has analysis), that is criticism.

Actually this is incorrect.

When a person calls America something that it is not, and then lists points made upon biased views, and slanted opinions of events to push a political agenda, that does not count as analysis.

It is not a lie.

It is a lie, which you seem to do a lot.
Let’s examine some more of your lies.

When you speak about freedom of speech, that seems odd considering there are "free speech zones" where freedom of speech is limited.

This is a lie! Free speech is not limited in free speech zones. This is absurd! As a matter of fact, it’s the exact opposite. The purpose of free speech zones is to allow free speech. You’ve got it backwards.

These zones keep protesters out of certain areas or at the very least, effectively silence them.

Again, this is another lie,
The purpose of free speech zones is not to silence, it’s to allow people to be as loud as they want to be. And if you’ve ever been near a free speech zone, you know that the people there are anything but silent. Actually they’re quite LOUD! Again the opposite of what you say.

Already 2 lies and a piece of disingenuous spin.

Just like the flash presentation you don’t address the real purposes of the events you see, instead you try to spin them with your own bias..

A good example of this is free speech zones. It’s not to restrict free speech. But just because you have rights does not mean the people being protested don’t have rights too.

Free speech zones were set up to protect the rights of the protesters and the protested.

Here is the thing a lot of people tend to be confused about.
The constitution gives you the right to freedom of speech, it does not give you the right to intimidate, harass, and badger those with whom you do not agree. It’s amazing how many liberals don’t get this.

You can’t use your freedom of speech as a method to take away the rights of others.
But most of the time this is exactly what protesters attempt to do.

What is really amazing about this is the fact that even though liberals and democrats are the ones who mainly complain about this, Free speech zones originally were created to rein in right-wing protesters who were protesting abortion clinics

I very much agree with this.

Why?

Because even though I don’t support abortion, and even though I believe in the right to protest, I do not believe that right-wing Christians have the right to block someone else’s access to a clinic.

So, to keep from taking away the anti-abortionists right to protest and yet at the same time also protect the right of those going into the clinics, they came up with free speech zones. Basically judges said you can protest, but you must do it this far away from the clinic on this sidewalk

You have the right to exercise your rights.
You do not have the right to your rights to keep others from exercising theirs.

The press as we know it seems intimidated by the current administration.

This is blatantly false. Yet another lie. You obviously don’t watch the daily press conference on C-SPAN. The media is anything but cowed! Ask Scott McClellan the former white house press secretary whether or not the media is intimidated.

This is what I’m talking about you guys being full of it. You keep saying things that are blatantly not the truth and then expecting the rest of us to buy it.

It is embarassing for a democracy when being candid or simply speaking the truth is seen as a heroic act (in a free society being open as such should not only be common but also expected).

This is subjective interpretation based on your bias. It is your opinion that they were being candid, your opinion that speaking the truth, your opinion, that was heroic.
This is the way you interpret it. It’s your bias.

On various blogs across the web, when a person goes on a show and simply says, "I think 9/11 was an inside job" or whatever else, people look on with awe. When things occur like microphones being cut on shows (Jeremy Glick), I wonder if such a person was really given a chance at free speech. It seems more like a tightening of a grip to me.

Free speech does not include the right to lie on your government or the people serving.
The constitution does not give one the right to engage in libel or slander. ,

The statement, “I think 9/11 was an inside job" Is a very serious accusation of a crime. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have the right to do this unless you can back this up.

This is no different for you or me. I don’t have the right to go around accusing people of murder, crimes, and putting them on blogs and making documentaries and going on tv and stating stuff without being able to prove it in a court of law.

The constitution does not protect libel and slander. There are laws against this, with good reason. We can’t have a society in which people say whatever they want to and accuse people of crime, murder, rape, not back it up and just get away with it. That is a crime within itself.

If you are going to accuse someone of an inside-job-murder of 3000 people, you better be able to bring more than a conspiracy theory. You better be able to bring evidence and proof

But these people know they can’t prove what they say. That isn’t the purpose. The point of all this is to get a message out there that Bush Administration is a bunch of liars and murders, and to go on various shows and say it to get people talking, and then when confronted on it, they either retract it or they try hide behind “freedom of speech”, in other word, freedom smear and slander.

The Patriot Act strips people of their rights by allowing the government to remove civil liberties.

This is again the way you interpret it. Again it’s your bias. Everyone doesn’t see it that way.

When physical searches and electronic surveillance are increased, being done in a wider scale, you have to ask yourself if that truly catches terrorists. Unless loads of terrorists are being caught, the average civilian is being treated like a terrorist because now he is being watched closer or can't do this or that.

Unhunh, yeah I read George Orwell’s 1984 too.

Ok, now explain to me again why I should be concerned???

Whether the majority of people support or reject the Patriot Act does not change my personal issues with the act itself. I'm not basing my personal opinion for being against the Patriot Act by looking to other people. Whether the bill itself is worthy is a matter solely about its virtues and worthiness, not with the "large swath of the country" which would not agree with me

.

Nice try,
but no one said that you were basing your opinion for being against the Patriot Act by looking to other people.
What was stated was that You are not criticizing or critiquing the patriot act (i.e. pointing out its good points and its flaws), you’re denouncing it.

Also, you won’t say that “some of the patriot act is necessary and let’s deal with its flaws”; instead you basically castigate the patriot act all together.

And you do this all on the bias of your own opinions.

I stated the fact that a large swath of the country does not agree with you, to show you that your opinion is not the only one that counts. Here in a democracy, it is the will of the majority that count. And how the majority sees it is what will carry the day.

But no one accused you of using other people to make your opinions. You are being accused of not critiquing the Patriot act, but instead denouncing it. (Again see Webster’s for difference between critiquing and denouncing.

And history would then repeat itself if America did indeed become more fascist and folks remained. What would be surprising about history possibly repeating itself? History has repeated before and quite frankly, certain aspects of history could well repeat again.

Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if history repeats itself. You must choose whether to take part in that repetition, or to learn from history and escape.
No. This is in fact, still the dumbest part of you argument.

Look, there are those of us who don’t believe that the country is fascist.

You obviously do.

If America is in fact becoming fascist like you say it is, then staying here is suicide!

The rest of us don’t leave, but because we think this is a democracy. You on the other hand think the county’s fascist. You should escape and try to save yourself!!! Again history already proves that doing otherwise is basically suicide.

Oh geez, please don’t tell me that not only are you paranoid, but you’re suicidal too???

Why hide contempt?

I don’t know. Why are you attempting to hide your contempt?

Contempt is contempt. If I hate something, I say I hate it. Period.

Agreed! That’s what I’ve been saying to you. If you hate the country then you hate it. Why don’t you just come on out and say it instead of trying to hide behind catch phrases such as “differing views” to hide your contempt for the government and the country.

The country and the government are different things. Disliking one doesn't mean you have to dislike the other and vice versa.

This is a faulty argument. What people like you don’t understand is this is not a dictatorship. This is a democracy, contrary to what you believe. This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The people are the government in a democracy. The argument that you put forward that: “you dislike one and not the other” is absurd. Because, the people and the government are one and the same.

If I believe America has flaws, I believe America has flaws. Whether a country is the best or worst, if it has flaws, it has flaws and you can mention those flaws without necessarily saying you think that country is the best or not. People are quick to see a criticism of America and think, "Oh, he must think America is one of the worst countries around." I remember being in a store once and Bush was talking on the television. I asked the guy next to me, "Do you believe a word he said," and the guy leaned close to me and whispered, "No, but I have to be quite because I don't want to appear like I hate this country." Why did I mention this story? It has parallels to your lines above. There are people quick to associate dissent, criticism and protest with hate/contempt. Some guys out there are haters but not all of them, so I wish this association and assumption would fade away.

Ah but you don’t believe that America is the best country on earth, and that effects the lens through which you see those flaws. It will also decide whether or not you see things as flaws in the first place. A lot of the things that you see as flaws may not be flaws at all, but you see them as such, because of your bias, or your pre-existing paranoia.

Non-sequitor. This has nothing to do with my argument, nor with what I was saying. You seek to pigeon-hole me and have me "own up" hatred and contempt, to prove your line of thinking.

Nope, not a non-sequitor. That is the way you posted. If you don’t want to be misunderstood, then you need to be clearer in how you answer you posts.

You are right. America never could be diverse if people with differing views need to leave. Because if they left, the country would only be filled with people who see things and think in the same way (because the disenters needed to leave, as in your sentiment above).

Now you’re contradicting yourself. According to you and those like you the country is already fascist. Whether people left or not, would make no difference.

On the contrary. I had a good argument, while you never had one.

False. Your argument has been anything but good, while my argument has been rock solid from the fore.

And my statement on this point still stands… You’re falling over your own argument.

This is in large part because your argument lacks logic.

You are trying to argue that you have the right to be to be diverse and have differing views in a country that you claim is already fascist. This makes no sense. You can only do that in a democracy, which you claim this is not.

Rushed thinking. Uninterrupted fascism would choke diveristy until none is left. America is not in a fully accomplished state of fascism, hence reminents of the past (i.e., diversity) still remain. Though if the current course were to go unchecked, diversity as we currently know it would not exist.

Current course unchecked? Interesting line of logic. Please expound more on this part of your conspiracy theory.

I love certain ideals of America. The fire (criticism) comes from a love of protecting what is and a desire to see that improve.

Ok so you love the ideals of the country, you just don’t love the country itself. Ok, I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I grew up being heavily criticized. The good things you speak of were rare and in some cases, non-existant for me. That said, I never doubted being loved or the motives of the people around me. Sometimes you talk about the good and the bad, but there are some times when it's just mostly the bad (which would signal cases of serious matters, where things are bad and there isn't any or much good to talk about).

Interesting. You said that you never doubted being loved or the motives of the people around you

Which again backs up what I stated.

People do know the difference.

I agree that you have to be careful.

Thank you.

But like I said earlier, it was uneven in my case but I am okay. When you bring things up to people to debate them and what not, a good debate typically has many sides, many views and endless possibilities. But some discussions are more one-sided than others.

But this gets to the heart of one of the reasons why I have a problem with this post. It’s not whether the discussions are more one sided than the others. It’s the disproportionate percentage of the discussions that are more one-sided, and the fact that they are always one-sided to the same side (liberal). That means that threads and the people starting the discussions are biased and have no balance at all.

The shift in general sentiment (posts) could signify a change in this country, or at least, a major change in the perception of this country.

Not if that sentiment is only shared by one group of people who are known to have the same political agenda.

If somebody thinks someone or something is taking a major turn for the worse, then the vast majority of what will be said will probably be negative.

Ah, but what are those perceptions based on? Facts? Or slanted interpretations of events based on political bias?

The real question is whether or not these changes are negative or not. If these changes are not negative, then people are complaining about nothing and wasting their time. But if people have some legitimate concern about some of these issues, then expressing that concern is perfectly okay as long as its genuine.
For the record, I see Democrats on certain sites bashing America to no end. Occasionally, some conservatives do the same.

Same here. I see that stuff all the time. And when you see the constant bashing, it becomes necessary to examine the motives of those people to decide whether you should take those people seriously or not.

But I'm not a Republican or Democrat.

No but you are a liberal.

So I don't have a made up, predetermined side on all these issues where my mind is already made up on everything.

No but you do seem to have your mind made up on this one.

If threads about fascism, immigration, economics, wars, and other issues come up, negativity is to be expected. If I came into a thread about fascism or something of the like, I should expect to see the gauntlet laid down. If this thread was about something positive and guys were still throwing shots at the country, then I'd be mad.

Agreed.

But that’s my point. There are little to no positive threads.

I know people born in cities where they never left their side of town, never saw other cities in their state, never left the region of the country in which they were born and died without ever visiting another land. In fact, some of those people were those in my family. Getting up and moving isn't easy. Some guys struggle moving within their own city or moving around their state or moving across their country. Telling those same people to leave their country outright would be impossible in some cases.

Again your argument not well thought out. You are attempting to insinuate that finance or money status has something to do with this. It does not.

There are people in Africa, who are much poorer than any of the people you know, but when the threat of genocide hit, they picked up and moved.

South America is full of people who are streaming over the border to get into this country and away from poverty and/or oppression.

Financial status means nothing to the equation. If things get bad enough people move.

If the conditions were as bad as you say people would leave. Obviously they are not.

Who knows if they are better or not. Some countries may very well be better, while others would be worse.

Then pick the one that’s better and move to it.

Putting dualistic thinking aside for a second, the bigger picture might be that other countries would simply be different. For certain people, something different may be all they want or need.

Ok, fine then. Then pick one that’s “different” and move to it.

Either way it the same.

Look. I’m just trying to help you out.

It just does not make sense to stay in a country that is fascist and oppressing your freedoms. You need to go somewhere where you can be happier, because obviously you are not happy here.

It's okay. You have your views and I have mine. That said, I do understand where you're coming from. I just happen to see things differently.

Agreed.
I have my views, and yours are flawed.

But that being said, I respect right to have your views
and hope you find some way to escape this fascist country.

 

[The Dark Mind]

bump

 

[oneofmany]

No it is you, who should be careful.

We both should be careful. But you go out on the deep end more.

There is no stereotyping here, just a statement of fact.

I disagree.

No, you are not engaged in constructive criticism but denouncing because Webster's said so.

Interesting. I am not denouncing because you said so (your beliefs, your definition, your views) but rather because of Webster. Now that that is clear, let's address Webster because this is where the issue lies.

The definitions of the words are what they are.

In the first line of your definition, it speaks of pointing out faults. Now was America simply called fascistic (mere judgement, insults without specifics pointed out) or where specific things pointed out (e.g., the 14 points of fascism)? If those faults were pointed out, then reviewed/commented upon, you have a critique.

But let's say there was nothing pointed out, only insults were tosssed and typical mudslinging and denouncing of America as a evil place. Then the question would be, could you give a critique of something if being negative?

----
Critique

Usage Note: Critique has been used as a verb meaning "to review or discuss critically" since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. But this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon, although resistance appears to be weakening. In our 1997 ballot, 41 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence As mock inquisitors grill him, top aides take notes and critique the answers with the President afterward. Ten years earlier, 69 percent disapproved of this same sentence. Resistance is still high when a person is critiqued: 60 percent of the Usage Panel rejects its use in the sentence Students are taught how to do a business plan and then are critiqued on it. Thus, it may be preferable to avoid this word. There is no exact synonym, but in most contexts one can usually substitute go over, review, or analyze.·Note, however, that critique is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context; 86 percent of the Panel approved of its use in the sentence The committee gave the report a thorough critique and found it both informed and intelligent.

If you have a problem with them, feel free to contact Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Company.

I have no need to contact them.

I never claimed that it was.

Your attitude of disdain in this thread gave such an impression. Good to hear this isn't the case.

Actually this is incorrect.

When a person calls America something that it is not, and then lists points made upon biased views, and slanted opinions of events to push a political agenda, that does not count as analysis.

Then you need to challenge each and every of the 14 points of fascism and expose them. Make your criticism of the information. Show why it's biased, slanted and wrong and then you'll show how these 14 points were nothing more than slander or denouncement.

It is a lie, which you seem to do a lot.
Let’s examine some more of your lies.

This is a lie! Free speech is not limited in free speech zones. This is absurd! As a matter of fact, it’s the exact opposite. The purpose of free speech zones is to allow free speech. You’ve got it backwards.

Read up here at Free Speech Zones

The Bush administration has been critized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protestors to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[11] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages upclose, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[12] Regarding free speech zones, U. S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock has commented that "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression."

If you have two sides at a function, a pro-side and a con-side, and one side is being treated differently (pushed back, sent further away, effectively isolated), then these zones are zones of inequality.

Click Me!

The American Civil Liberties Union last week asked a federal court in Washington to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages upclose, where they are likely to be seen by the news media. The ACLU cited 13 incidents. Here they are, as described in the suit.

1. Phoenix

On Sept. 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fundraising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the president's policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the president had requested a federal protection zone.

These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the president's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer.

Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.[/QUOTE]

Dissenting views are apparently being marginalized. One of the protest zones in one case was a quarter of a mile away, completely out of site of the building (5 in the link).

Already 2 lies and a piece of disingenuous spin.

Those aren't lies.

Just like the flash presentation you don’t address the real purposes of the events you see, instead you try to spin them with your own bias..

A good example of this is free speech zones. It’s not to restrict free speech. But just because you have rights does not mean the people being protested don’t have rights too.

Free speech zones were set up to protect the rights of the protesters and the protested.

For protection? Read those articles. If one group of people are closer to the action, closer to what's going on than the other group, that is favorism. The issue here is those with opposing views are being pushed back, while neutral and pro-siders are closer to what is going on. This zone isn't as much about protection unless those working this are under the assumption that only the dissenters are dangerous and need to be treated differently than others.

Here is the thing a lot of people tend to be confused about.
The constitution gives you the right to freedom of speech, it does not give you the right to intimidate, harass, and badger those with whom you do not agree. It’s amazing how many liberals don’t get this.

Again, read the links. Some protesters were treated differently simply because the content on their signs. Intimidation, harassment and badgering was not what was going on.

You can’t use your freedom of speech as a method to take away the rights of others.
But most of the time this is exactly what protesters attempt to do.

Most of the time? So most protesters are bad and use free speech to take away others' rights?

What is really amazing about this is the fact that even though liberals and democrats are the ones who mainly complain about this, Free speech zones originally were created to rein in right-wing protesters who were protesting abortion clinics

In the link I posted, the free speech zones have stifled those protesting against the war, economic policies and other issues. While the creation of these zones may have targered right-wing protesters (which if you specifically target any group, that's not really fair), the left has been targeted as well. I'm not a fan of people of either side being targeted as long as they behave. Regardless of their views or signs, with good behavior, I'm not a fan of this.

I very much agree with this.

Why?

Because even though I don’t support abortion, and even though I believe in the right to protest, I do not believe that right-wing Christians have the right to block someone else’s access to a clinic.

So, to keep from taking away the anti-abortionists right to protest and yet at the same time also protect the right of those going into the clinics, they came up with free speech zones. Basically judges said you can protest, but you must do it this far away from the clinic on this sidewalk

You have the right to exercise your rights.
You do not have the right to your rights to keep others from exercising theirs.

I have no problem with having people back off to give space in certain sites. As in the link I posted, my concerns would be along the lines of whether one group was pushed further back, while the other group(s) were slightly closer. Also, another concern I might have is if people are pushed too far back (again, referencing issue #5 in the link, if you're not even in view of the place, you were pushed back too far).

This is blatantly false. Yet another lie. You obviously don’t watch the daily press conference on C-SPAN. The media is anything but cowed! Ask Scott McClellan the former white house press secretary whether or not the media is intimidated.

This is what I’m talking about you guys being full of it. You keep saying things that are blatantly not the truth and then expecting the rest of us to buy it.

Rest of us buy it? I'm not selling anything. Look at Fox News or CNN or even MSNBC. You can look at several issues and see where people begin to make a case or an argument about something, only to stop cold turkey in their tracks. For example, when the issue regarding illegal wiretaps broke, hosts on all of the channels (except Fox by and large) said it was illegal, played clips of Bush in the past saying he would need a court order to issue such surveillance, and had legal experts give legal arguments as to why such behavior was criminal/unwarranted. Much like other issues, Bush was being criticized, occasionally bashed with zinging statements and put on the spot. So when the final nail in the coffin was to be placed, people backed off. After all that coverage, hosts wouldn't call Bush a criminal. Now backtrack a second. If you talk about Bush doing illegal acts, yet refuse to call him a criminal, what's going on? It's like playing both sides of the coin.

This is subjective interpretation based on your bias. It is your opinion that they were being candid, your opinion that speaking the truth, your opinion, that was heroic.
This is the way you interpret it. It’s your bias.

All people have some degree of bias based upon their interpretations. That said, if you want to debate whether guys like Jeremy Glick (who I feel were candid) were infact candid or not, I'd be glad to debate it.

Free speech does not include the right to lie on your government or the people serving.
The constitution does not give one the right to engage in libel or slander. ,

The statement, “I think 9/11 was an inside job" Is a very serious accusation of a crime. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have the right to do this unless you can back this up.

Here is my point. If you come onto a talk show to debate 9/11 in what is supposed to be a "no spin zone" where people can speak their minds, you have to be prepared for the possibility of somebody disagreeing with the official explanation and potentially dropping a bomb shell on your show. Guys like Glick were not idiots screaming and yelling and saying things just to embarass or harm people. In a calm manner, he said he thought 9/11 was an inside job. I could understand if a person was told to avoid certain topics in part of an argreement to come onto a show. But if he's given free reign and then you cut his microphone, boot him off the show and then have several future shows teasing the guy (like "I can't believe I had this loser on my show), what's going on with speaking your mind? Especially on a show where you were brought there for that sole purpose.

This is no different for you or me. I don’t have the right to go around accusing people of murder, crimes, and putting them on blogs and making documentaries and going on tv and stating stuff without being able to prove it in a court of law.

The constitution does not protect libel and slander. There are laws against this, with good reason. We can’t have a society in which people say whatever they want to and accuse people of crime, murder, rape, not back it up and just get away with it. That is a crime within itself.

Libel and slander is one thing. But if you are in the right place, you can say virtually anything. And if you find yourself well-behaved, in the right place and still not able to speak your mind, something's not right.

If you are going to accuse someone of an inside-job-murder of 3000 people, you better be able to bring more than a conspiracy theory. You better be able to bring evidence and proof

But these people know they can’t prove what they say. That isn’t the purpose. The point of all this is to get a message out there that Bush Administration is a bunch of liars and murders, and to go on various shows and say it to get people talking, and then when confronted on it, they either retract it or they try hide behind “freedom of speech”, in other word, freedom smear and slander.

Certain people like Glick and Alex Jones can prove what they say. Now the issue is getting them in the media to debate the issues. People like Glick probably won't get many more chances. So it's up to other dissenters to get an opportunity, then make the best of it. The educated dissenters have a good argument where they cite physics professors, miners (?), and have all sorts of documents (obviously, this issue is huge and both sides have a lot of material). Now the run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist would get on television and embarass himself, hurt his cause and make it harder for other fellow dissenters to get on television (because if a couple of low level conspiracy theorists have poor showings on television, the shows might not be eager to bring others back if they get the impression that that's all a certain side has to offer).

This is again the way you interpret it. Again it’s your bias. Everyone doesn’t see it that way.

I gave reasons for my view.

Unhunh, yeah I read George Orwell’s 1984 too.

Ok, now explain to me again why I should be concerned???

If matters of civil liberties possibly being, or rather actually being encroched upon matters, then you might want to be concerned. If that doesn't bother you or you don't feel this is the case, then you won't be concerned.

Nice try,
but no one said that you were basing your opinion for being against the Patriot Act by looking to other people.
What was stated was that You are not criticizing or critiquing the patriot act (i.e. pointing out its good points and its flaws), you’re denouncing it.

I gave my reasons for being against the Bill above, hence I am not denouncing it.

Also, you won’t say that “some of the patriot act is necessary and let’s deal with its flaws”; instead you basically castigate the patriot act all together.

The reason I do not say that is that I am not convinced of its necessity. When you feel something is partially necessary but went too far, then you talk about how the cons outweight the pros and what not. In regards to this bill, I'm not of the stance that it had such positive qualities.

And you do this all on the bias of your own opinions.

Incorrect.

I stated the fact that a large swath of the country does not agree with you, to show you that your opinion is not the only one that counts.

Since I never claimed my opinion was the only one that counts, this statement here is addressing something I never said.

Here in a democracy, it is the will of the majority that count. And how the majority sees it is what will carry the day.

Naturally. Democracy is the rule of the people.

But no one accused you of using other people to make your opinions. You are being accused of not critiquing the Patriot act, but instead denouncing it. (Again see Webster’s for difference between critiquing and denouncing.

To which I disagree.

Irrelevant.

Hardly.

It doesn’t matter if history repeats itself.

Actually it does.

You must choose whether to take part in that repetition, or to learn from history and escape.

True. Yet there is occasionally another possibility, a third option. You can learn from history, stand your ground, fight it and preventing it from happening.

No. This is in fact, still the dumbest part of you argument.

To which I disagree and see as a poor part in your argumentative planning.

Look, there are those of us who don’t believe that the country is fascist.

Absolutely.

If America is in fact becoming fascist like you say it is, then staying here is suicide!

Don't jump the gun. If America reaches a certain point in fascism, then it would be suicide to stay. At that point, staying would be suicide if the efforts against fascism had utterly failed.

The rest of us don’t leave, but because we think this is a democracy. You on the other hand think the county’s fascist. You should escape and try to save yourself!!! Again history already proves that doing otherwise is basically suicide.

America's course could still be turned around and as long as that reality and belief exist, it's not suicide to stay.

Oh geez, please don’t tell me that not only are you paranoid, but you’re suicidal too???

Paranoid? No. Concernced? Yes.

Why are you attempting to hide your contempt?

Nothing is being hid.

Agreed! That’s what I’ve been saying to you. If you hate the country then you hate it.

If you hate something, you hate it. If you love something, you love it. And you can criticize something and still be in the position to choose whether to hate or love it.

Why don’t you just come on out and say it instead of trying to hide behind catch phrases such as “differing views” to hide your contempt for the government and the country.

Simple. Because I don't hate this country.

This is a faulty argument. What people like you don’t understand is this is not a dictatorship.

Of course America is not a dictatorship. In fact, you'll find few people saying this is the case. What you will find is people concerned that the potential for one exists. But not lots people saying we currently have a full-blown dictator in the oval office right now, at this very second in time.

This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The people are the government in a democracy. The argument that you put forward that: “you dislike one and not the other” is absurd. Because, the people and the government are one and the same.

I disagree. If a person said, "I don't care much for Bush and his administration, but I love the American people. I love my neighbors and the people in my city," that is different from saying, "I don't care for Bush and I hate everybody else too (my neighbors, the kids at my school, etc.)." Your feelings towards one might not necessarily be the same as your feelings towards the other.

Ah but you don’t believe that America is the best country on earth, and that effects the lens through which you see those flaws.

I believe America is great country that is declining. Still great but declining.

It will also decide whether or not you see things as flaws in the first place. A lot of the things that you see as flaws may not be flaws at all, but you see them as such, because of your bias, or your pre-existing paranoia.

I agree to the point of bias (to which we all have) but paranoia isn't a factor in my thinking. I am concerned but not paranoid.

Nope, not a non-sequitor.

It was.

That is the way you posted. If you don’t want to be misunderstood, then you need to be clearer in how you answer you posts.

You have statements in parts of your posts, arguing against things I never said.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. According to you and those like you the country is already fascist. Whether people left or not, would make no difference.

Fascism chokes diversity until none is left. I allege some diversity exists because the process is not yet complete. Unless you are arguing the process of choking diversity is more instanteous than gradual, I fail to see your point.

False. Your argument has been anything but good, while my argument has been rock solid from the fore.

False. Your argument has been anything but good, while mine was more solid.

And my statement on this point still stands… You’re falling over your own argument.

And my statement still stands in that you never had an argument.

This is in large part because your argument lacks logic.

As does yours.

You are trying to argue that you have the right to be to be diverse and have differing views in a country that you claim is already fascist.

I am not speaking about having the right to be diverse. I am saying as it stands, America right now is currently diverse but moving in a direction of less diveristy.

This makes no sense. You can only do that in a democracy, which you claim this is not.

If what you said was right, it would not make sense. But you missed the point.

Current course unchecked? Interesting line of logic. Please expound more on this part of your conspiracy theory.

My conspiracy theory? These are just my views.

Ok so you love the ideals of the country, you just don’t love the country itself.

Indeed. As a country moves further from its core, you find yourself loving what made the country become what it did, moreso than the country itself as if moves from the essence that made it was it is in the first place.

Ok, I see.

Good.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're welcome.

Interesting. You said that you never doubted being loved or the motives of the people around you

Which again backs up what I stated.

People do know the difference.

My family were those I never doubted and I never doubted I was loved by them.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

But this gets to the heart of one of the reasons why I have a problem with this post. It’s not whether the discussions are more one sided than the others. It’s the disproportionate percentage of the discussions that are more one-sided, and the fact that they are always one-sided to the same side (liberal). That means that threads and the people starting the discussions are biased and have no balance at all.

I understand the concern about disproportionate negative dicussions. Hopefully, yourself and some others on this site post more, give your opinions/views in hopes of opening things out more.

Not if that sentiment is only shared by one group of people who are known to have the same political agenda.

As far as there being a common agenda, you need to ask people in this forum what their agendas are. You might be shocked to find out there that more than agenda could emerge. They might not be as homogenous as expected.

Ah, but what are those perceptions based on? Facts? Or slanted interpretations of events based on political bias?

You could ask several people where their perceptions come from and get different answers from each person. Unless you ask somebody, it's hard to know.

Same here. I see that stuff all the time. And when you see the constant bashing, it becomes necessary to examine the motives of those people to decide whether you should take those people seriously or not.

Be sure to check the motives of people but spend as much time, if not more, on the message of what they say. A person could have a strange motive yet make solid posts.

No but you are a liberal.

I am not liberal or conservative. I may agree with a liberal on a specific issue one day and agree with a conservative the next.

No but you do seem to have your mind made up on this one.

On this issue I have my stance and on other issues, I'm less defined. But since I have no affliation, I don't have an automatic or near automatic stance on issues as predetermined by party lines.

Agreed.

But that’s my point. There are little to no positive threads.

Then people should make more positive threads (yourself included). That would be a solution to the issue. If certain people only make certain types of threads, then somebody else needs to supply what those other people do not.

Again your argument not well thought out. You are attempting to insinuate that finance or money status has something to do with this. It does not.

There are people in Africa, who are much poorer than any of the people you know, but when the threat of genocide hit, they picked up and moved.

South America is full of people who are streaming over the border to get into this country and away from poverty and/or oppression.

Financial status means nothing to the equation. If things get bad enough people move.

If the conditions were as bad as you say people would leave. Obviously they are not.


Then pick the one that’s better and move to it.

If you make a reference to Africa, let it be known many of those people, such as the "Lost Boys" and other groups did not make it. People such as that that set out on those journeys had no guarantees and were pushing their luck. And even in Africa and South America, you still had those who stayed. Not all of them left, not all of them could leave and not all of them chose to leave (among those who were able to).

Ok, fine then. Then pick one that’s “different” and move to it.

Assuming I want to move, yes I would go to one of those places. But unless I make that decision, I remain here.

Either way it the same.

Look. I’m just trying to help you out.

Thank you.

It just does not make sense to stay in a country that is fascist and oppressing your freedoms. You need to go somewhere where you can be happier, because obviously you are not happy here.

If you believe such a country still has hope and is still worth fighting for, it makes perfect sense to stay and fight if you like. If the situation is hopeless and the nation as a whole is worthless, then it doesn't make any sense to stay.

I have my views, and yours are flawed.

I have my views and you have yours. It could be less about your flaws or my flaws and simply more about two people having different ways of seeing the world.

But that being said, I respect right to have your views
and hope you find some way to escape this fascist country.

Or I could always stay and fight the fascism, hopefully alongside other thousands or millions of people, make a difference and improve the status quo.

 

[The Dark Mind]

We both should be careful. But you go out on the deep end more.

I’d say the same thing about you.

I disagree.

And I respect your right to do so.

However it changes nothing.

Interesting. I am dounncing not because you said so. Meaning this view, opinion, definition is not your own. Rather it's the view of another.

That is correct.

The definitions is not my own, but of a credible factual source (dictionary), which is what gives it so much weight in fact. This is much better than relying on opinion.
-----
The second thing I would like to point out is how you tried to slip “view, opinion, and definition” in as the same thing.

This is a problem you seem to have. You like to equate opinions and facts.

Opinions facts are not equal. Views and opinions = opinions. Definitions and facts = facts. Opinions are what you think things should be. Facts are what things really are.

Your opinion may be that the earth is flat. The fact is that it is round. You can keep your opinion, but facts and reality stand long after opinions fall.

Definitions of words change or vary in accordance to whom you are speaking. Much as language changes, definitions do as well. You have a technical, literal view of criticism and denouncing. While I am less so.

This is incorrect. All words have set definitions.

If that was not so we could not be having this conversation.

Words can’t just mean whatever you want them to mean. They must have an official meaning in that particular language. It is what makes language possible in the first place.

Dictionaries were created to keep a catalog of the definitions and spellings to keep people like you from attempting to spin the definition of those words.

I have no need to contact them.

Ok good, that’s great to hear!

That means you don not have a problem with the set definition of denounce, as opposed to the word criticize. Good. That means we’re starting to get somewhere.

Your attitude of disdain in this thread gave such an impression. Good to hear this isn't the case.

No actually what I stated was how it never ceases to amaze me how people can come in and badmouth the country, and then when called on it, try to hide behind “criticism”.

I was commenting on how people will openly have distain for this country, but I you go to point it out, they try act as if you don’t have the right to do so, and attempting to hide behind the old “criticism argument as protective cover.

However, I made no mention of this being a flame thread. I have no clue where you got that from.

Then you need to challenge each and every of the 14 points of fascism and expose them. Make your criticism of the information. Show why it's biased, slanted and wrong and then you'll show how these 14 points were nothing more than slander or denouncement.

Funny, I had thought about doing that earlier, but then you posted, and I felt that it was more important to answer the points in your posts.
I was still planning on doing this. But now after having this conversation with you, and seeing the bias I’m up against, I’m not sure that this wouldn’t be anything more than just a colossal waste of time. But I may do it anyway.

Read up here at Free Speech Zones

Actually I did read here. It backs up everything I said to you.
See quote below…

Free Speech Zones


Quote From Wikipedia:

Legality
The Supreme Court has ruled that picketing and marching in public areas has some degree of protection under the First Amendment, but less than that afforded to pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations for such activities, however, may not target the content of the expression.

If you have two sides at a function, a pro-side and a con-side, and one side is being treated differently (pushed back, sent further away, effectively isolated), then these zones are zones of inequality.

That is also incorrect. If you have two sides at a function, a pro-side and a con-side, and one side is being treated differently because they are acting differently (threatening, being belligerent, attempting to use their rights to deprive others of theirs), then these zones are zones of equality (protecting the rights of all to engage in free speech).

Those aren't lies.

Yes they are. You claim that Free Speech zones deprive people of freedom of speech. That’s a lie. Read the article again.

Free Speech Zones


Quote From Wikipedia:

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States.

For protection? Read those articles. If one group of people are closer to the action, closer to what's going on than the other group, that is favorism. The issue here is those with opposing views are being pushed back, while neutral and pro-siders are closer to what is going on.

I did read those articles. And those people weren’t there to protest. They were there to disrupt. Freedom of speech gives you a right to protest, it does not give you a right to disrupt.

If you are there to disrupt, then you need to be moved further away. I’ve seen events like these. The speaker stands up to speak to a group of people who have peaceably assembled to hear them and a bunch of people who came in to disrupt the speech because they didn’t like what the speaker was saying and didn’t want anybody else to hear it.

They took away the right of the speaker to speak.
They took away the right of the audience to hear the speaker
They disrupted an event.

You don’t have the right to deprive other people of the right to deprive other people of the right to hear something because you don’t like what is being said. You don’t have the right to deprive the speaker of his or her freedom of speech because you don’t like what they are saying. And you don’t have the right to disrupt a function or event and people’s right to freely assemble.

You can not use your rights to take away the rights of others.

This zone isn't as much about protection unless those working this are under the assumption that only the dissenters are dangerous and need to be treated differently than others.

The fact is if your organization has a track record for disrupting events, you will be treated differently.

Again, read the links. Some protesters were treated differently simply because the content on their signs. Intimidation, harassment and badgering was not what was going on.

You only posted the links you wanted.
Try these.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31394
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/005096.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15779
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/03/1584931.php

Most of the time? So most protesters are bad and use free speech to take away others' rights?

Yes.

Maybe I should clarify. I make a difference between…
marchers- those walking as large group from one point to another,
and
demonstrators – those who are picketing outside and establishment or inside of an event.

Although both are types of protesters when I refer to protestors I’m usually referring to the latter (demonstrators).

In the link I posted, the free speech zones have stifled those protesting against the war, economic policies and other issues. While the creation of these zones may have targered right-wing protesters (which if you specifically target any group, that's not really fair), the left has been targeted as well. I'm not a fan of people of either side being targeted as long as they behave. Regardless of their views or signs, with good behavior, I'm not a fan of this.

I am a fan of this. I believe that everyone should be protected. There are usually three to four groups that show up in these type of situations in some combination or other. The protested, the protesters, the counter-protesters, and the bystanders. All these people need to be protected.

If a person just holding up a sign, or quietly marching, or stand up and turn their backs to the speaker then

I have no problem with having people back off to give space in certain sites. As in the link I posted, my concerns would be along the lines of whether one group was pushed further back, while the other group(s) were slightly closer. Also, another concern I might have is if people are pushed too far back (again, referencing issue #5 in the link, if you're not even in view of the place, you were pushed back too far).

While we can argue about how far back is too far (and yes I agree if you're not even in view of the place, you were probably pushed back too far),

I do believe that your distance to or from a person should be in direct proportion to the threat or chaos you bring.

Rest of us buy it? I'm not selling anything.

Yes you are! You’re trying to sell the idea that media is cowed by the Bush administration. Of course again, this is blatantly false.

Look at Fox News or CNN or even MSNBC. You can look at several issues and see where people begin to make a case or an argument about something, only to stop cold turkey in their tracks. For example, when the issue regarding illegal wiretaps broke, hosts on all of the channels (except Fox by and large) said it was illegal, played clips of Bush in the past saying he would need a court order to issue such surveillance, and had legal experts give legal arguments as to why such behavior was criminal/unwarranted. Much like other issues, Bush was being criticized, occasionally bashed with zinging statements and put on the spot. So when the final nail in the coffin was to be placed, people backed off. After all that coverage, hosts wouldn't call Bush a criminal. Now backtrack a second. If you talk about Bush doing illegal acts, yet refuse to call him a criminal, what's going on? It's like playing both sides of the coin.

Thank you. Thank you for illustrating my point!!!
It’s like I said. They can’t back it up.

And your example proves what I’ve been talking about in regards to libel and slander.

You can say anything you want about a person on tv, if you can back it up with proof and the facts.

And the reason they stop short is because they can’t prove what they say. You can’t call Bush a criminal, because he’s not one! If Bush did not commit a crime, you can’t get on tv and say he did! To do so would be libel and slander!

The reason they all stopped short is because these people KNOW they can’t prove what they say.

But as I stated earlier in my last post, that isn’t the purpose. The point of all this is to get a message out there that Bush is a criminal and that his administration is a bunch of liars and murders.

Again. Thank you. Thank you for illustrating my point!!!
------------
The reason Fox News didn’t do what they did is because Fox knew, just like CNN, and MSNBC did, that it was false, This is because Fox is interested in reporting the truth, whereas CNN and MSNBC are left-leaning liberal organizations bent on smearing the President.

All people have some degree of bias based upon their interpretations. That said, if you want to debate whether guys like Jeremy Glick (who I feel were candid) were infact candid or not, I'd be glad to debate it.

Ok, please show me what evidence Jeremy Glick to back up his claim.
I watched the interview with Bill O’reilly. I heard a bunch of accusations, but no evidence.

Here is my point. If you come onto a talk show to debate 9/11 in what is supposed to be a "no spin zone" where people can speak their minds, you have to be prepared for the possibility of somebody disagreeing with the official explanation and potentially dropping a bomb shell on your show. Guys like Glick were not idiots screaming and yelling and saying things just to embarass or harm people. In a calm manner, he said he thought 9/11 was an inside job. I could understand if a person was told to avoid certain topics in part of an argreement to come onto a show. But if he's given free reign and then you cut his microphone, boot him off the show and then have several future shows teasing the guy (like "I can't believe I had this loser on my show), what's going on with speaking your mind? Especially on a show where you were brought there for that sole purpose.

Ok now you’re just flat lying again.

That’s not how it happened. He was allowed to make all his points. He and Bill O’reilly had a good back and forth. His mic was cut at the end because he kept interrupting and wouldn’t let Bill O’reilly say what he had to say.

Proof that Bill O’reilly is an upstanding and fair interviewer. The show was PRE-TAPED!!! (It’s amazing how many people forget this!). If Bill O’reilly didn’t want his views out there, then he would have simply cut that segment from that evening’s show. But because Bill O’reilly is and upstanding interviewer, and believes in airing opposing points of view, he ran it anyway. This is not the actions of someone trying to stifle alternative views.

Again, the show was pre-taped! He knew what Glick’s views were and chose to run them anyway!!! The Bill O’reilly / Glick interview is proof that debate is not being stifled in this country!
Link provided below:

Click here to watch the actual segment with Glick on the Factor

Libel and slander is one thing. But if you are in the right place, you can say virtually anything. And if you find yourself well-behaved, in the right place and still not able to speak your mind, something's not right.

Again that’s, my point. Nobody cares what you say in this country around your dinner table or at the barber shop. But once you bring that speech into official arenas (radio, tv, movies, documentaries, print media) then it becomes serious.

A lot of so called protesters have been doing this. This is especially bad on Air America radio, with people

Certain people like Glick and Alex Jones can prove what they say. Now the issue is getting them in the media to debate the issues. People like Glick probably won't get many more chances. So it's up to other dissenters to get an opportunity, then make the best of it. The educated dissenters have a good argument where they cite physics professors, miners (?), and have all sorts of documents (obviously, this issue is huge and both sides have a lot of material). Now the run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist would get on television and embarass himself, hurt his cause and make it harder for other fellow dissenters to get on television (because if a couple of low level conspiracy theorists have poor showings on television, the shows might not be eager to bring others back if they get the impression that that's all a certain side has to offer).

Look, there is a world of difference between:

Glick, who has warped political views, an obvious political agenda, some theories and no proof

And

Alex Jones, who backs his theories up 12 ways till Sunday with facts.

Again the difference is agenda.

Are you just out to smash and smear because you hate the president and have a political agenda, so you latch onto a wild conspiracy theory with no facts or proof so you can do as much damage as possible?

Or…

Do you not have a political bias to one side or the other, but have stumbled upon the fact that Bilderbergers are a bunch of evil bastards who want to take over the world?

See there’s a difference. One’s a political hack with warped political agenda. The other, although I don’t believe everything he says, does bring enough facts and evidence to be taken seriously, AND he is not out for a political agenda..

I gave reasons for my view.

But they are just that. Your view.

If matters of civil liberties possibly being, or rather actually being encroched upon matters, then you might want to be concerned. If that doesn't bother you or you don't feel this is the case, then you won't be concerned.

That’s my point.
I don’t feel this is the case, therefore I’m not concerned.
Yes, exactly.

I gave my reasons for being against the Bill above, hence I am not denouncing it.

Yes you are denouncing it. You are declaring the whole thing to be evil or reprehensible
I know you don’t like dictionary definitions, but
----------------------
de•nounce
verb
1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.


In order to critique a bill you must point out the good and the bad.

----------------------
crit•i•cize
verb
1. To find fault with, point out the faults of: example: criticized the decision as unrealistic. See Usage Note at critique.
2. To judge the merits AND faults of; analyze and evaluate.

You are not critiquing, you are denouncing.

We’ll keep doing this Webster’s dictionary thing till you get it right. You are not entitled to your own definition of words. Sorry.

The reason I do not say that is that I am not convinced of its necessity. When you feel something is partially necessary but went too far, then you talk about how the cons outweight the pros and what not. In regards to this bill, I'm not of the stance that it had such positive qualities.

Ok. Ok. See? That statement. That statement makes so much sense to me. I don’t necessarily agree with it. But that was a very logical statement. I can accept that.

Uhm, why didn’t you say that earlier?

Incorrect.

No very correct. All you opinions you have presented on the Patriot act have been just that, OPINIONS. The so called facts that you presented where nothing more than your view of events seen through your slanted take . Of course that would make them opinions not facts.

Since I never claimed my opinion was the only one that counts, this statement here is addressing something I never said.

No. Actually you did state the opinion as if yours (and those who had opinions like yours) was the only one that counted.

Naturally. Democracy is the rule of the people.

That is again is why I say, when it comes to the necessity of the patriot act, a large swath of the country does not agree with you.

To which I disagree.

I know. You have a problem with facts, reality, and definitions of words. Sorry. I can’t help you here.

Hardly.

Of course it is. Your statement is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if history repeats itself. You must choose whether to take part in that repetition, or to learn from history and escape.

Actually it does.

No really it doesn’t. Again, it doesn’t matter if history repeats itself. You must choose whether to take part in that repetition, or to learn from history and escape.

True. Yet there is occasionally another possibility, a third option. You can learn from history, stand your ground, fight it and preventing it from happening.

Uh, yeah that would be true if history teaches, but history doesn’t teach that. What history teaches is that you don’t stay in countries that are fascist, because fascist regimes are only overthrown from the outside.

To which I disagree and see as a poor part in your argumentative planning.

Again I agree with your right to disagree.

However again it changes nothing.

This is in fact, STILL the dumbest part of you argument. Again your contention that instead of leaving that a country that is already fascist, that it is better to stay and fight doesn’t make sense. Not logically, and not historically.

Your feeble attempts to spin out of this part of your argument is futile. I’m going to keep raising how dumb it is, until you address it logically. Period.

Oh, and if you see this as a poor part in my “argumentative planning”, you need your eyes examined.

Absolutely.

Good at least you can see that much.

Don't jump the gun. If America reaches a certain point in fascism, then it would be suicide to stay. At that point, staying would be suicide if the efforts against fascism had utterly failed.

Certain points in fascism? You don’t read history books much. There is no such thing as points in fascism. You’re either a fascist state or you’re not.

America's course could still be turned around and as long as that reality and belief exist, it's not suicide to stay.

No America’s course could only be turned around if we stand by and let you. And we won’t. Because we like the course we’re on.

Paranoid? No. Concernced? Yes.

Uhm, if you’ve committed no crime, and you believe that “they” are out to get you. If you live in a democracy, but think it’s a fascist state. If you that they are spying on you and that your phone calls are being monitored, but you can’t give a rational reason why,

then you are in fact paranoid.

Webster’s
par•a•noid (pr-noid)
adj.

1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.
------
Also what about the other part of my question are you suicidal????

Nothing is being hid.

Ok good. So you openly admit you hate the country???

If you hate something, you hate it. If you love something, you love it. And you can criticize something and still be in the position to choose whether to hate or love it.

Of course! But if you love something you won’t have much bad to say about it, and what you do say about it won’t be that bad.

Otherwise you wouldn’t love it.
You’d hate it.
-------------
This is how we know when people hate the country. They always have a LOT of bad to say about the country, and what they say is always awful!

Simple. Because I don't hate this country.

???????? YOU DON’T?!?!?!
Nah you’re just being dishonest. You don’t love this country. As a matter of fact I know by the end of this post you’ll state so again.

Of course America is not a dictatorship. In fact, you'll find few people saying this is the case. What you will find is people concerned that the potential for one exists.

Ok. We are in agreement America is not a dictatorship. Good! More progress!

But not lots people saying we currently have a full-blown dictator in the oval office right now, at this very second in time.

Uhm you, don’t use the internet much do you?

Or read blogs, or listen to liberal talk radio do you?

Yes people refer to the president as a fascist dictator. The ones that don’t compare him to Hitler. The people calling into these shows or posting in forums refer to his staff as Ikemans and Goebbels and the like. And plethora of photo-shopped images of George as Hitler and his cabinet as the SS are too many to count.

So please don’t say that people aren’t saying we currently have a full-blown dictator in the oval office right now. Because that’ just not true. Ok?

I disagree. If a person said, "I don't care much for Bush and his administration, but I love the American people. I love my neighbors and the people in my city," that is different from saying, "I don't care for Bush and I hate everybody else too (my neighbors, the kids at my school, etc.)." Your feelings towards one might not necessarily be the same as your feelings towards the other.

That’s impossible. If you don’t care for Bush and his administration, then how can you care for the people who put him there? When you hear liberals say I hate republicans, they aren’t just talking about the President or the people in Congress, they are talking about republicans who put them there.

I believe America is great country that is declining. Still great but declining.

You say America’s great, but STILL won’t say it’s the greatest. My point exactly. Thank you.

You have statements in parts of your posts, arguing against things I never said.

No, I’ve been very much keeping up with the flow of this debate and what was said. You have a tendency to argue and insinuate things, and then pretend you didn’t. However, I’ve only responded to what you posted. If you don’t want to be misunderstood, then you need to be clearer in how you answer you posts.

Fascism chokes diversity until none is left. I allege some diversity exists because the process is not yet complete. Unless you are arguing the process of choking diversity is more instanteous than gradual, I fail to see your point.

I don’t see what part of point is so hard to see. It’s actually quite straight forward. According to you and those like you the country is already fascist. According to you, free expression and diversity of thought are already stifled. People left the country to escape would not make the country less diverse, because there is no diversity of thought anyway. Them leaving would make no difference in the equation.

And just for the record, historically yes fascism is always been instantaneous. Fascism is NOT a process!

False. Your argument has been anything but good, while mine was more solid.

False. Your argument has been anything but good, while my argument has been rock solid from the fore.

And my statement still stands in that you never had an argument.

No your statement does not still stand, and that is because your statement is in fact a lie, again, which you seem to do quite often.

Not only have I had an argument from the beginning. It has not changed. Your refusal to acknowledge the argument’s existence means nothing. Not only does the argument exist. I will continue to make it…

The people of this post made the argument that this country is fascist.

I then made my argument (the one you are now lying and saying doesn’t exist)
That
If this country was so "fascist" how come people can protest and constantly put out speeches and garbage like this?

And..

If you can find a country better this one,
one that is not as so "fascist" as you put it,
for Christ-sakes why don't you buy a ticket and move to it?

You then responded to this, after already stating repeatedly that this is a fascist country, by stumbling and falling over falling over your own argument, like people like you always do, and posting this pitiful argument…

If America is supposed to be about diversity, this "get the hell out of here" debating tactic is disgraceful and needs to disappear.

To which I pointed out the obvious…
“Wait, we can’t be about diversity! We’re turning into a fascist country remember???”

Again,

You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t argue that this is a fascist country, and then trip, stumble and fall back over your argument back the other way by contradicting yourself and saying “oh we are about diversity too”.
You have to choose one or the other.

As does yours.

Really? What way? Please explain.

I am not speaking about having the right to be diverse. I am saying as it stands, America right now is currently diverse but moving in a direction of less diversity.

This points to a major flaw in both your argument and the flash presentation. You can say America is moving in the direction of less diversity without claiming it to be a fascist state. But that’s not what you’ve done. Both you and the flash presentation claim that this is a fascist state.

If what you said was right, it would not make sense. But you missed the point.

Please explain to me what part of point I missed?

Indeed. As a country moves further from its core, you find yourself loving what made the country become what it did, moreso than the country itself as if moves from the essence that made it was it is in the first place.

Good! At least I’ve got you to own up to the fact that you don’t love the country. See I told you knew that you would by the end of this post. Ok now we’re really starting to move along here!

So now that we’ve got that covered, tell me if you don’t love the country, how can we trust your motives when you say you’re pointing out this country’s flaws. How do we know that the things you are flaws? Maybe the things you are pointing out are not flaws, but you just see them as flaws, because you don’t love this country in the first place?

As far as there being a common agenda, you need to ask people in this forum what their agendas are. You might be shocked to find out there that more than agenda could emerge. They might not be as homogenous as expected.

Not necessary. Derogatory statements towards people of a particular party, or even worse, outright statements of hate towards a person, makes it sort of obvious.

I am not liberal or conservative. I may agree with a liberal on a specific issue one day and agree with a conservative the next.

No.

If you believe that this is a fascist state as opposed to being a democracy with a few flaws, you are in fact a liberal. Plain and simple.

Then people should make more positive threads (yourself included). That would be a solution to the issue. If certain people only make certain types of threads, then somebody else needs to supply what those other people do not.

Remember you mentioned something about flame threads? Starting a Pro-America thread in a liberal forum such as BGOL would quickly devolve into one of those.

If you make a reference to Africa, let it be known many of those people, such as the "Lost Boys" and other groups did not make it. People such as that that set out on those journeys had no guarantees and were pushing their luck. And even in Africa and South America, you still had those who stayed. Not all of them left, not all of them could leave and not all of them chose to leave (among those who were able to).

Even so, it got bad enough, that even though they knew they were pushing their luck, they chose to leave anyway. Which goes back to what I said when it gets bad enough people will leave. If the conditions were as bad as you say people would leave. Obviously they are not.

Assuming I want to move, yes I would go to one of those places. But unless I make that decision, I remain here.

So you WANT to stay in a fascist country? If you don’t mind staying in country that is fascist country, then what’s the hell are you complaining about?

Thank you.

No problem.

If you believe such a country still has hope and is still worth fighting for, it makes perfect sense to stay and fight if you like. If the situation is hopeless and the nation as a whole is worthless, then it doesn't make any sense to stay.

So when it reaches that point, then will you leave?

I have my views and you have yours. It could be less about your flaws or my flaws and simply more about two people having different ways of seeing the world.

Ok. Ok. I like that statement. That’s logical. Fine then.

Or I could always stay and fight the fascism, hopefully alongside other thousands or millions of people, make a difference and improve the status quo.

This goes back to the “dumbest part of your argument” thing I keep harping on. This is part of the major flaw that keeps flowing through your logic and it seems you keep leaving one major factor out.

It’s me and millions of people like me. We don’t see this as a fascist state. We see this as democracy. And we see you as not liking this democracy or the country the way it is and that you are trying to change it into something else.

It’s not the government you will be fighting against.
It’s us!
It’s the millions of us who like our democracy the way it is, and don’t want you changing it into something else!

 

[GET YOU HOT]

[FRAME]http://www.oilempire.us/fascism.html[/FRAME]

 

[The Latchkey Kid]

this thread is full off propaganda

 

[QueEx]

this thread is full off propaganda

But no one will no what it (the propaganda) is unless YOU point it out.

QueEx

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Real patriotism also does not compromise with tyranny. Real patriotism does not accept the tyranny of the federal government to fight the tyranny of Al-Qaeda. Real patriotism fights both. As Mr. Bush stated, freedom itself was attacked. And freedom will be defended. From all enemies, foreign and domestic. And if the federal government, or any other government, is found to be attacking freedom and liberty, for whatever reason, they not only SHALL be treated just as we would treat Al-Qaeda terrorists, but they SHOULD be treated the same. If Mr. Bush and his supporters have any problems with this, they should realize that the President set these parameters himself. He did not say America was attacked and shall be defended. He didn't say the federal government was attacked. He said "freedom itself" was attacked. We are fighting FOR freedom, and if that places us as an enemy of the federal government or any other government, then so be it.

For those of you who prefer anything else to freedom itself, be it security, be it commerce, be it party loyalty, whatever it is, the words of Samuel Adams wonderfully express my sentiment:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Copyright, 2001, LizMichael.com

 

[Rockefella_Yall]

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...the course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry​

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.


I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Unfortunately, the Abuse of Power by the current "President" and majority makes me dissatisfied with the way our country is being run, not the country as an entity. I think you are way off course, when you twist the facts and fingerpoint Patriotic individuals as anti-United States when it is clearly apparent that 75% of its responding citizens disagree with the Bush administrations' Seige of the United States & its Citizens Rights. Irregardles of State of War...
God Bless America!!

 

[cthomas0964]

I'm sure using there are those that could find the same argument with almost every president we have every had. Except Carter. He is a great person but wasn't a good president because he just couldn't deal with all the issues that were going on at the time. National security? Radical Muslims declared war on us years ago and we just reacted in the past 4 years. We do have national security issues and it may take sending troops somewhere. There are alot of people on this board that hate this country and hate Bush. For those that don't like him get out and vote. And that is alot of BS about election fraud. The biggest fraud we have is all the people that vote multiple times because you don't need a photo ID to prove who you are. Here in GA we have taken care of that problem. I used to be a Democrat but lately I am wondering what is more important to them... Mexican vote or Gay/lesbian vote. I am heaing more BS that they want to give voting rights to immigrants, legal and illegal. As far as I am concern maybe we should go back to giving a literacy test to vote. If you are too dumb to read(english) then you shouldn't be able to vote. I have more critizisms of Dems because they are suppose to be for blacks but all I see is a few words and handouts.

 

[GET YOU HOT]

So, what good is an literacy test when the machines that we vote on are rigged?

 

[QueEx]

Which ones are rigged ???

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">

This was originally posted by domex is a new thread but
was moved to this thread on the same subject.
________________________________________________

</font size>

America: Freedom to Fascism (WAKE UP CALL!!!) Video

America: Freedom to Fascism (WAKE UP CALL!!!)

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" align="middle" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-2381098849184685952" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" quality="best" bgcolor="#ffffff" scale="noScale" salign="TL" FlashVars="playerMode=embedded"> </embed>

 

[African Herbsman]

....

 

[Makeherhappy]

Few months before 911 Wolfowitz gave a chilling speech at west point

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf6197a44d" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf6197a44d">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[muckraker10021]

Re: Few months before 911 Wolfowitz gave a chilling speech at west point

<FONT FACE="microsoft sans serif, arial unicode ms, verdana, sans-serif" color="#333333" size="4">
Paul Wolfowitz was arguing for preemptive ‘first-strike’ US military invasions years before 911. He is the prime architect of the Israeli-Likud Neo-Cons, and the Bush Crime Family, blood soaked manifesto. It is not ‘new’ however. It is just a updated version of Adolph Hitlers’s Third-Reich fascism.

I posted what you see below on MAY 25th 2005</font>

<hr noshade color="#D90000" size="12"><HR>

<table border="9" width="700" id="table1" bordercolorlight="#FF0000" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolordark="#FF0000" bgcolor="#000000" height="1500"><tr><td width="100%" height="100%"><br /><center><div>
<font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial black" size="6">
Hijacking Catastrophe</FONT>
<font color="#ff0000" face="Arial black" size="4">9/11 Fear & the Selling of American Empire</font></CENTER><p>
<font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial" size="3"><b>
This film examines in detail how a radical fringe of the Republican Party used the trauma of the 9/11 terror attacks to DELIBERATELY LIE to the American people about a non-existent imminent threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to advance their pre-existing agenda to radically transform American foreign policy while rolling back civil liberties, ending social programs at home, and engaging the US into a Perpetual War for Global domination. The deliberate false justifications for Invading & Occupying Iraq are contextualized within the larger three-decade struggle by the lunatic neoconservatives led by Cheney & Rumsfeld to seize TOTAL CONTROL OF AMERICA and THE WORLD by means of an Unchecked Unilateral Military Intelligence Security Apparatus. This unrestrained force would no longer respect national sovereignty, would no longer respect human rights, and would hand-pick its corporate allies in its quest for total global domination. Fortunately like previous global fascist schemes they will ultimately be defeated.<p><p>
<CENTER>
<EMBED src="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/hijacking_catastrophe.rm" width="320" height="240" controls="all" console="video" autostart="false"></EMBED><p>
<b><font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial" size="3">Let the video load, then click play</font></b></div></center><p>
<img src="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/images/0204-01.jpg"><br>
<font face="arial" size="3" color="#FFFFFF"><b>Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1975 when both of them worked for President Ford.

<br>President Ford rejected their "Let's take over the world" neo-con plan in 1975. Papa Bush also rejected the neo-con plan in 1990. These guys along with chief Ideologue Paul Wolfowitz have been having wet dreams about Unilateral American Hegemony imposed via military power for decades.</b></font</td></tr></table><p>

<hr noshade color="#D90000" size="12"><HR>

<FONT FACE="microsoft sans serif, arial unicode ms, verdana, sans-serif" color="#333333" size="4">
For those of you who read & actually want to know the details.
You know who you are QueEx, tehuti, Makkonnen, Dolemite etc....
The excerpt below from author T.D. Allman below outlines the history of the brutish barbarism that the neo-cons call "Foreign Policy". As you will see for yourself, their uncivilized “We Own The World” wet dreams are nothing more than fascism. </font>

<font face="arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana" color="#000000" size="3">
<b>by T.D. Allman</b>

CHENEY AND RUMSFELD WERE capos of the ideological clique that, right from the start, gave the George W. Bush presidency its peculiarly nasty taste. Sharing a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude toward the outside world, including America's allies, as well as a sneering contempt for human rights and international law, these ideological apparatchiks were embedded by the score in key appointive posts. It didn't take them long to turn the United States from the most respected into the most resented nation on earth. The first casualty of this unprovoked war on the world as it is was trust in America.
The Bush spinners call all this breaking and trashing ''conservatism." It's actually a petulant crusade to destroy time-tested policies, as well as decades-old strategic relationships, that anyone who truly valued America's security would strive to conserve. This isn't "standing up for America," as George W. Bush claims at his fundraisers. It's giving the world the finger.

With George W. Bush in the White House, there was no situation too big or too small to turn into a global wedge issue. Millions of illiterate, malnourished women in Africa would get AIDS. They would pass the virus on to unwanted children born of avoidable pregnancies, because the Bush administration snatched health care funds away from village clinics that had provided information on abortion. Playing politics with AIDS in Africa made for terrific soundbites about family values. It also produced, during a stopover in Nigeria, one of the classic George W. Bush laugh-or-cry moments.
To a vast assembly of Africans —mostly young and poor, many of them too poor even to afford condoms —George W. Bush pledged the following: "We will support abstinence-based education for young people in schools and churches and community centers." This was his born-again riff on what practically every American bigot thinks at one time or another, though very few say it out loud: Forget family-planning clinics, IUDs, birth-control pills, or condoms. If we can only teach these people to control their sex urges, they won't need our charity.

International agreements that had staved off nuclear holocaust were also trashed. For more than fifty years, American statesmen had labored to construct a system that would limit testing and deployment of the most terrifying of all weapons of mass destruction —nuclear warheads fired at long range in ballistic missiles. Wrecking this system became George W. Bush's strategic goal. First step: turning the United States into the first nation in history to repudiate a nuclear-arms limitation treaty, opening the way to multitrillion dollar development of the unworkable "Star Wars" missile defense systems.

Land mines? Let little children play hopscotch on 'em! War crimes? Let mass murderers go free! The ozone layer? Keep those chemicals belching into the stratosphere; that'll show outer space who's in charge down here. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld provided the vision. But when it came to the lower levels of government, where things actually get done and undone, the totemic figure in all this destructiveness and disruptiveness was a bland-looking, middle-aged "defense intellectual" with a reassuringly deep voice and honest-looking eyes named Paul Wolfowitz. Until George W. Bush made Wolfowitz's dangerous ideas US strategic doctrine, Wolfowitz—like Rumsfeld—had been out of power a long time, operating on the far fringes of the intellectually respectable in the think tanks of Washington, D.C.

Wolfowitz had been a longtime protege of Dick Cheney, just as Cheney had started out as Rumsfeld's protege. All three had become fixated on the idea of invading and occupying Iraq long before George W. Bush decided to use 9/11 as the pretext for an attack. Wolfowitz's official title in George W. Bush's administration was Deputy Secretary of Defense, but WARNING TO THE WORLD should have been stenciled on the door of his Pentagon office. He personified the deep need of the Bush crowd, above all of George W. Bush himself, to start a war. Like Bush, Wolfowitz was a chip-on-the-shoulder Ivy Leaguer (not some Sunbelt cowboy), in his case from Cornell. In addition, Wolfowitz had that tell-tale qualification shared by so many of George W. Bush's most trusted pro-war appointees —avoidance of service in the US military. Like Dick Cheney and almost all of the George W. Bush war hawks, he had been a persistent and successful Vietnam war draft-dodger.

Once in the saddle, George W. Bush would rough-ride across the globe like a tourist atop one of those coin-operated broncos in a Texas theme park. Then, in Iraq, he would embark on the most juvenile and unjustified overseas US military adventure since the 1970 Cambodia invasion. Wolfowitz, backed by Rumsfeld and encouraged by Cheney, came up with the strategic gobbledygook used to rationalize Bush's recklessness.

In the Bush-generated crises to come, Wolfowitz would be to the doctrine of "pre-emption" what Ptolemy had been to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth: chief theoretician of a system that defied reality. Secretary of State Colin Powell would play the Galileo figure. He knew how the world really moved, but when called before the Oval Office curia, Powell — the only one of them with any firsthand knowledge of war, and much else—would mumble acquiescently, letting Cardinal Cheney, Archbishop Rumsfeld, and Monsignor Wolfowitz have their way. Did Powell imagine that, in the end, reason and reality would prevail, once George W. Bush thought things over? If so, that was his illusion.

Power to shape the strategic thinking of a president of the United States had been a long time coming for Paul Wolfowitz. As early as 1992, he had urged that the United States adopt as strategic doctrine the notion that world law and world order counted for nothing when the United States wished to violate the one and overturn the other. This made him quite a thinker so far as the ultraradical neocon pamphleteers were concerned. According to the media propagandist William Kristol, Wolfowitz was "ahead of his time," "prophetic," and "vindicated by history" for having been among the first to propose a unilateral US invasion of Iraq.

George W. Bush's father knew better. When Wolfowitzs boss and mentor during that first Bush administration, then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney, presented Wolfowitz's policy proposals to him for approval, Bush the elder rejected this first draft of what later would become the blueprint for his son's "for-us-or-against-us" foreign policy. Then, tellingly, he ordered Cheney, not Wolfowitz, to rewrite it. Cheney retailored the words to fit the prevailing expediency. A less offensive approach to military policy, for the time being, remained in force, but Cheney never would have slipped Wolfowitz's document onto the president's desk if Wolfowitz's vision hadn't reflected his own views, as would become clear eight years later, when he became vice president.

Whatever his limitations, the elder Bush, a combat veteran of World War II, had grasped that Wolfowitz's strategic nostrums, which he and his staff churned out so copiously at US government expense, weren't just dumb; they were recipes for disaster— a threat in themselves to America's security. It is a measure of the difference between father and son that George W. Bush adopted as his own the same proposals his father had recognized as dangerous and foolish.

In the interval between the two Bush administrations, Wolfowitz remained a little-noticed figure outside ultraradical circles. Then George W. Bush rebestowed presidential favor upon him. Like the resuscitated Rumsfeld, he acquired cult status in Washington. The proposals that had been rejected earlier received the scrutiny normally reserved for Dead Sea Scrolls. The (Ur-document in the Wolfowitz dossier, however, is his official Defense Department curriculum vitae. It's the resume of a life as dangerously divorced from the world's realities as the Bush foreign policy has turned out to be.

When Wolfowitz graduated from Cornell with a degree in mathematics in 1965, the United States was already deeply divided by the Vietnam war. Among strategic thinkers the great controversy was whether to escalate in Vietnam. Wolfowitz played no part in the cut and thrust of that debate. Instead, at a time when other young Americans were either fighting the Vietnam war or protesting it, Wolfowitz —like Cheney—began learning how to use the internal levers of government to realize his own agenda, in this case how to evade involvement in the traumas of Vietnam entirely.

Wolfowitz not only dodged the draft; he got the federal government to pay him for doing it. Right out of college, he collected his first government paycheck, along with his first deferment. "A year as a Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget (1966-67)" is how the future presidential adviser on strategic warfare describes his first work experience in a career that would never involve meeting a payroll, turning a profit, or producing something of actual use to the American public. One thing Wolfowitz could have learned at the Bureau of the Budget, though he evidently did not, is how an unnecessary war can bust a nation's finances.

Graduate studies could not be hurried during those war years, which included the Tet Offensive and the Kent State killings, as well as Nixon's Vietnamizaton program. Following his government internship, Wolfowitz spent the subsequent five years holed up in select ivory towers, including Yale and the University of Chicago, where work on a PhD thesis helped keep his draft deferment in order for half a decade.

Besides avoiding military service, Chicago allowed Wolfowitz to immerse himself in the quasi-superman, negative-Platonic theories of the neoconservative guru, Leo Strauss, who supervised his doctoral thesis. The sad history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century political philosophy can be read, in part, as the story of a series of gypsy-moth German philosophers who, having failed either to halt or to explain the triumph of intellectual barbarism in Germany itself, then went on to addle impressionable grad students from Chicago to kingdom come. Think of Strauss as an emigre Midwestern anti-Marx, and Wolfowitz, the son of a mathematics professor in upstate New York,as the anticommunist suburban equivalent of all those callow grad students who, back in the sixties, thought Che and Mar-cuse were so neat, and you get the idea. As Strauss saw it, America's love of freedom and its protests against an unjust war were signs that America, the nation which had defeated Hitler and saved him and so many others from persecution and death in their own homelands, was turning into another Weimar Republic. It's an interesting prefiguration: Wolfowitz soaking up Strauss' notion that America is decadent, while the professor authorizes his draft deferment.

After passing his twenty-sixth birthday, it was time for Paul Wolfowitz to get back on the federal payroll: "Four years (1973-77) m me Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, working on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and a number of nuclear nonproliferation issues" is the way his resume describes it. In Washington, Wolfowitz met other young ideologues who also had decided that the thoughts of (philosophy department) chairman Leo Strauss provided a key to the global use of American power. These "defense intellectuals" included Richard Perle, whose prescription for the Middle East was, always and inevitably, to place US might entirely and unques-tioningly at the service of whatever Israel, at any one moment, happened to think it wanted to do. Another figure in this circle was Elliott Abrams, whose idea of the proper exercise of US power was inciting terrorism (the neocons called it "Low Intensity Warfare") against Third World nations of whose governmental philosophy Leo Strauss would have disapproved. Abrams later would be indicted (though have his conviction reversed on appeal) as a result of his involvement in the Reagan scandal with the Contra insurgents in Central America.

For the next quarter-century Leo Strauss was to this clique of busy Washington neocons what Ayn Rand was to the Fountain-head nuts. There was always, also, the whiff of Tolkein and his hobbits about them, as well as Superman (Nietzche, but also the comic book). Though these guys imagined themselves to be deep thinkers, they were actually steeped in the modern cultural trivializations of Plato and Homer —Leo Strauss, not The Republic, Lord of the Rings, not the Trojan wars. Decades later, the Iraq war would be launched by a bunch of post-docs who, all too clearly, never had bothered to read The Iliad, and understand what it reveals about war, and what war does to human beings, during all that time they were avoiding their military service. The diplomatic analyst William Pfaff later described the Wolfowitz crowd in the following terms: "They have a political philosophy, and the arrogance and intolerance of their actions reflect their conviction that they possess a realism and truth others lack." Their future obsession with taking out Saddam Hussein would be their kitschy, post-modern trivialization of Kierkegaard's Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing.

While preparing for the day when George W. Bush would give him the actual power to enforce his ideological notions, Wolfowitz passed the time writing policy proposals. In the Washington world of staff-generated policy papers —the kind of documents that mean nothing unless and until someone with real power picks them up and takes them seriously—one talent all successful strategic scriptwriters must have is a knack for making sure events like presidential elections don't disrupt the steady output of their position papers. This was a skill Wolfowitz displayed very early on. As far as most Americans were concerned, Jimmy Carter's election to the presidency in 1976 marked a big change—away from the Nixon-Kissinger conception of US power, to one based on human rights. But under Carter, as later under Reagan, Wolfowitz's career marched on regardless of how Americans voted or what happened around the world. So did his proposals. Whoever was President, Wolfowitz's approach to power remained simplistically arithmetical: The more weapons America had, and the more it used them, the better (whether or not there was any strategic or moral justification). It is this inflexible approach to America's "national security," unchanging over the decades and impervious to geopolitical reality, which, like some harmless hamster in a sci-fi film, would grow into an earth-threatening monster once bombarded by the radioactive attention of George W. Bush.

It was under the peaceable Jimmy Carter, however, that Wolfowitz got the breakthrough job that would lead to all that. While still in his early thirties, he was named deputy secretary of defense for regional programs. The recent US defeat in Indochina had started out as a regional problem. Then, through more than a decade of body counts, the Johnson and Nixon administrations had escalated it into a global humiliation for the United States. Following that self-inflicted catastrophe, the United States certainly needed new approaches to regional problems. Nowhere was the old domino-theory approach more outdated than in the vast Indian Ocean region, stretching from southeast Asia through the Indian subcontinent and Iran to the Arab world and Israel. Here the traditional US approach, emphasizing military "solutions" to economic and social problems, combined with political support for local dictators, was more than wrong. It was meaningless.

Change was in the air after the Indochina defeat. A new kind of strategic understanding, not just new kinds of weapons systems, would be needed if the United States was to avoid further disasters. All this was as lost on Wolfowitz as it was on Rumsfeld and Cheney and, later, George W. Bush. Wolfowitz described his actions back then to forge a new American regional approach, following the military disaster in Vietnam, as helping to "create the force that later became the United States Central Command and initiated the Maritime Pre-positioning Ships, the backbone of the initial US deployment twelve years later in Operation Desert Shield."

This technically proficient military-mechanical exercise did foreshadow the unbounded faith America's strategic planners would place in techno-wars over the next quarter-century. It did nothing to separate US regional interests from the fate of the Shah of Iran. He, like various other US-supported despots, remained "a pillar of stability" in the US strategic approach — until in 1979 his own people overthrew him. Entirely unforeseen by America's national security mandarins, the fall of the Shah led, among other things, to the ayatollahs' seizure of power in Iran, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, and the Iran/contra scandals, to say nothing of the two Iraq wars the United States would later fight.

Billions spent on weapons hadn't made the Shah's regime viable, let alone a pillar of stability. Wolfowitz's warships positioned in the Indian Ocean would not stop the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, either. They couldn't even stop demonstrators from taking over the US embassy in Tehran and keeping the American staff there prisoners for more than a year. The revolutionaries of Iran —like Osama bin Laden twenty years later— were simply undeterred by the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney and (eventually) the George W. Bush strategy of "projecting" America's billion-dollar weapons systems into the Indian Ocean. Then as later, Wolfowitz along with the rest of them hadn't a clue as to how US military force really connected—and even more important, failed to connect—with the real world. As often happens in Washington, Wolfowitz's detachment from reality turned out to be an enormous career advantage. It freed him up to generate just the kind of "strategic" fantasy nonsense that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and George W. Bush love to find in their In boxes.

For most Americans, the shift from the approach to the world Jimmy Carter embodied to the one personified by Ronald Reagan was another big change. For Paul Wolfowitz it meant changing his commute. In spite of his complete lack of diplomatic experience, he was shifted from the Department of Defense to the Department of State, where he was made head of the policy planning staff. This always is a frustrating post since US foreign policy never gets planned, at least not in the State Department, but it served as a stepping stone to Wolfowitz's biggest preferment yet, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs.

This appointment was a bizarre illustration of how Washington actually works. It wasn't just that Wolfowitz had completely absented himself from the war in Vietnam and now was being put in charge of America's relations with the whole of the Pacific Rim, including Indochina. He had no academic, or diplomatic, or personal experience of any part of the Far East; he didn't even know it as a tourist. More than that, Wolfowitz had never represented the United States abroad in any capacity. He didn't know what it was like to fight or make peace in an Asian country, or for that matter run the branch office of a US business. Yet now, in Wolfowitz's own words, he "was in charge of US relations with more than twenty countries," including China and Japan, in the post-Vietnam war era.

During Ronald Reagan's second term, Wolfowitz finally got some limousine-level experience of the world beyond America's shores. He was named ambassador to Indonesia. This remains the only government post George W. Bush's chief strategic theoretician ever has ever held that has involved him performing some actual service for the taxpayers and citizens of the United States. Being ambassador to a vast, fascinating land like Indonesia was a form of exile from what, for Wolfowitz, really mattered: generating war plans in Washington. He was ambassador in Jakarta during 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989. The principal triumph he lists as resulting from his ambassadorship there is that "during his tenure, Embassy Jakarta was cited as one of the four best-managed embassies inspected in 1988."

Wolfowitz's workday changed dramatically when Dick Cheney became Bush the elder's secretary of defense in 1989, and called Wolfowitz back to the Pentagon to be his under secretary of defense. In the Washington mandarinate, being an assistant secretary is nice. Being named under secretary is almost Heaven. The Pentagon prose sings as Wolfowitz describes what happened once his Indonesia exile ended: "From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and force posture at the end of the Cold War."

The key phrase to grasp there is "the end of the Cold War," which posed a bigger threat to the Pentagon's purse and power than the schemers in the Kremlin ever had. At Cheney's behest, Wolfowitz and his policy spinners spent millions of man-hours conjuring up ways to increase US military spending even though, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Communist menace had vaporized without the United States having to fire a shot. The best boondoggle of them all —Star Wars —had been invented by wily old Ronald Reagan, all by himself. But lock 700 "defense intellectuals" in their offices at the Pentagon. Then inform them that unless and until they dream up enough spurious new threats to America's security, along with the new multibillion-dollar weapon systems necessary to counter them to ensure that US military spending cannot possibly be reduced, they won't get their next promotion. Before you know it, you'll have a "defense" budget guaranteed to ensure that not one red cent of the post-Cold War "peace dividend" ever gets back to the people of America. That's the nerdy work Wolfowitz and his minions were busily doing when, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. This event caught Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest of them as totally unaware as the attacks of September 11, 2001 later would.

The American turnaround after the Kuwait invasion was magnificent. Not since World War II had America's military might been so perfectly wedded to a legitimate military purpose. The liberation of Kuwait in February 1991, kick-started what, back then, even Republicans proudly called the New World Order. As well as a military victory, the Kuwait war was a historic diplomatic triumph for the United States. Both the elder Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, had seen to that. They understood that, in order to succeed, any new, post-Cold War international order would have to be based on right as well as might, and they had organized the United Nations-sanctioned, US-led effort to reverse Saddam's aggression on that basis. That was why George H.W. Bush in 1991, unlike George W. Bush in 2003, was able to assemble a genuine coalition of the willing. Nations ranging from Argentina to Syria, and from France to Turkey enthusiastically helped fight, and also to pay for that first Iraq war because it was fought for reasons they understood, to defend principles they shared —and because then, unlike later, the United States didn't act like a bully. A decade later, the same countries would keep their wallets closed and sit on their hands. There was an additional reason US efforts were so successful in 1991. Back then, the United States treated other countries with respect.

The swift totality of that first Iraq victory was stunning, but nothing impressed the world more than the principled approach the United States took once Saddam was defeated. US forces could have surged on to Baghdad. Instead, the first President Bush won the world's admiration with his decision not to transform the United Nations-authorized liberation of Kuwait into an American conquest of Iraq. It was a painful as well as principled decision to stop the war before Saddam Hussein was toppled, but Bush the elder understood that upholding the rule of law among nations was more important than settling scores with an unsavory dictator. Unlike George W. Bush later, he also understood that a unilateral, unauthorized US assault on Iraq, followed by a US military occupation of the country, would undermine American security by turning most of the Arab and Muslim world against the United States.

Wolfowitz and his 700 paper-pushers played no role in the stunning Kuwait victory. While they'd been churning up strategic "doctrine," the actual war was planned, run, and won by military professionals like Colin Powell. That didn't stop Wolfowitz from deciding that he should be the one to ordain what US national security policy should be in light of that decisive victory. More than a year after Operation Desert Storm had already demonstrated the best way for the United States to fight,and win wars in the post-Cold War era, Wolfowitz weighed in with a radically different counterproposal. It was the same blueprint for disaster that eleven years later would play itself out under George W. Bush.

Wolfowitz's war plan bore an innocuous-sounding label. He called his prescription for destroying the postwar international security system "Defense Planning Guidance." Even had its contents not been pernicious, its existence would have been redundant. In the form of Operation Desert Storm, Powell and the others had already created and successfully tested the paradigm of successful US action that, following the 9/11 attacks ten years later, would serve the United States as well in Afghanistan as it had in Kuwait. The key to both the 1991 Kuwait triumph and the 2002 success in Afghanistan was not America's overwhelming technological superiority in modern warfare. The key to success was that America's overwhelming superiority was used legitimately, in pursuit of a worthwhile objective, supported by the overwhelming majority of the nations of the earth.

"Defense Planning Guidance" took the form of a forty-six-page pamphlet that repudiated both the proven military-diplomatic success of the Desert Storm model of warfare and the democratic ideals and strategic conceptions—from the Four Freedoms to containment—which had, through all the follies and dangers, managed to save America and the world from utter disaster during the first half-century of the nuclear age. The Kuwait victory had been a victory for the internationalists and multilateralists within the Republican Party—for all those wimps, ranging from Kissinger to Powell, that Rumsfeld and Cheney had first tried to purge from power during their 1975 Holloween Massacre. "Defense Planning Guidance" was the opening gambit in a campaign which would only achieve success in 2001, when George W. Bush, deftly guided by Dick Cheney, brought Donald Rumsfeld back from the political wilderness, and Rumsfeld, in turn, put Wolfowitz in charge of putting an intellectual gloss on their nutty policy of ceaseless provocation all over the world.

By the time "Defense Planning Guidance" appeared in 1992, the world in which Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of us live had changed enormously. Many strategic theories had been tested by events, and proven wrong. The Vietnam war, for example, had been lost. Yet even after the United States was defeated, the dominoes had not fallen. It was Communism that fell after America lost the war it supposedly had been necessary to fight in order to halt Communism's otherwise inexorable advance. In the course of Wolfowitz's own unelected rise to a degree of power few elected public officials ever achieve in a democracy, a multitude of other gigantic, unforeseeable events had reduced to rubble the strategic conceptions that had guided —and all too often, misguided—American policy-makers for decades.

What was the result of these changes? Somehow, the United States not only had survived the "Communist threat" and all the other supposed menaces. It had remained the most powerful nation on earth. There were great lessons to be learned from these unforeseen turns of events. As Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Wolfowitz was in charge of trying to think through what the nagging discrepancy between America's strategic preconceptions and what actually happened in the world meant when it came to the United States spending trillions of dollars on weapons. Instead he ginned up a proposal for US military-industrial domination of the world.

Later, the damage-control folks in the George W. Bush administration tried to make it seem like Wolfowitz had only been kicking around some ideas. But "Defense Planning Guidance," as its title states, is a set of explicit instructions, from Wolfowitz to his staff, providing guidance as to how they should plan policy following the great changes that marked the beginning of the post-Cold War era. By then, many believed a new era of global relations, transcending the old nationalist and ideological rivalries, was at hand, in which no one nation would try to dominate the others. They believed it was America's responsibility as the world's most powerful nation, as well as in America's own national security interest, to nurture the emergence of this new era of globalization. In this new era, it was hoped, something other, and better, than nation-state arrogance would determine the world's response to problems ranging from political terrorism to the emergence of new, global health threats. Furthermore, for billions of ordinary people around the world —and billions had watched the Gulf War on TV—the recent victory over Saddam in Kuwait had provided the model for maintaining global law and order in the new era.

In "Defense Planning Guidance," Wolfowitz threw out that whole successful approach, with its emphasis on multilateralism and the rule of law. He propounded an opposite, dark paradigm — of a world in which only one nation, the United States, would dominate the world the way the Soviet Union once had dominated eastern Europe. All these years later, "Defense Planning Guidance" still makes chilling reading. It combines the objectives of the Brezhnev Doctrine with the rhetoric of Imperial Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It's hard to believe, reading it, that such conceptions could emanate from an American mind at all. The first President Bush was right to slap down Cheney, when he brought him Wolfowitz's proposal.

"Defense Planning Guidance" would have been an alarming document if it had been discovered in the KGB archives. Coming from an American, it was shocking. Americans grow up believing it's their destiny to save everyone else from the bully on the block. The strategic objective Wolfowitz put forth in "Defense Planning Guidance" was to turn America into the global bully. The first step to permanent global domination, according to Wolfowitz, was to make sure no onejgot in America's way, ever. Over the next decade, America's most dangerous enemies would turn out to be infiltrating viruses (as AIDS had already shown), and groups of fanatics acting independent of any national authority (as 9/11 would show). Yet Wolfowitz was fixated on fighting a new Cold War against a new Soviet Union. Only this time the war wouldn't be cold, and America wouldn't settle for containment.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival," Wolfowitz announced. (Throughout "Defense Planning Guidance," he writes "is," not "should be.") "This is," he continued, "a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." Here as throughout "Defense Planning Guidance," people don't count. Like George W. Bush later, he equates domination of "resources," notably oil, with "power," and the potential loss of control over those resources as defeat. People don't count, nor does rightful ownership of the resources the United States might decide to control. Also absent is the idea that the United States might eliminate "threats" to its national security by modifying its own behavior—for example, by consuming less imported oil —rather than by dominating others or resorting to military force. This approach, too, would become the George W. Bush approach. Not once during the invasion of Iraq, for example, would Americans be asked to support the war effort by driving fewer SUVs. George W. Bush's Iraq war would be a struggle in which Americans would be expected to sacrifice their lives, but not turn down their air-conditioners, give up their tax cuts, or buy less gas.

The overall US goal, Wolfowitz emphasizes in "Defense Planning Guidance," is not merely to retain control over oil supplies. Nor is the strategic objective to deter aggression, or even to contain it, as had been US strategy under every US president, Republican or Democrat, since the end of World War II. The goal, instead, is to impose a "new order" that will make it impossible for any country other than the United States "to generate global power" under any circumstances, for any reason.

Later, George W. Bush's petulance, as well as the arrogance he and those around him displayed, mystified many. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's outbursts against the "old Europe" especially startled people. Why did they get so ticked off simply because members of the United Nations Security Council, including America's allies on the council, disagreed with them? One reason Bush and those around him treated America's allies so contemptuously was that, by then, the ideas expressed in "Defense Planning Guidance" had been an ingrained part of their shared world view for years. As Wolfowitz himself had put it, "even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" on the part of "potential competitors," including America's allies, was not to be tolerated.

Combine this intolerant world view with George W. Bush's for-us-or-against-us approach and you have what, ten years after Wolfowitz wrote "Defense Policy Guidance," has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. By the time Bush invaded Iraq, it wasn't just the Russians and the Chinese, and all those Africans and Asians, and, as usual, the French who were "against us." Even Canada had turned into a "competitor."

Having defined the US objective as eliminating even the possibility of others aspiring to provide an alternative to American leadership, or even supplementing it on a regional basis, Wol-fowitz then proposed that the United States do away with the entire post-World War II system of collective security, epitomized by US cooperation with NATO and the United Nations. In his own words: "First the US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

And then? "Second, in the non-defense areas," Wolfowitz continued, "we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order." After pausing to consider what that last sentence actually means, it's hard, even now, to think of a statement by a US official more profoundly contemptuous — and ignorant—of the human and cultural, as well as military and strategic, realities of Europe, and of the rest of the world. Here we have, in words, what the Bush Doctrine became in deeds ten years later. While the United States decides what to do, where to do it, when to do it, and who will do it, the United States nonetheless will be magnanimous enough to "account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership."

It was one thing to propound universal US hegemony, as "Defense Planning Guidance" did in 1992. But how to achieve it? This was the question raised beginning in January 2001 when George W. Bush actually tried to put into practice Wolfowitz's megalomaniacal approach to world politics. As America's allies, among others, would try fruitlessly to make George W. Bush understand, it would be no cakewalk imposing US control even on one medium-sized Middle Eastern country, like Iraq. How, then, to achieve the global domination of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other ultraradicals dreamed? And even if such dominance could be achieved, what would be the benefit for the people of America?

These were the practical questions "Defense Planning Guidance" raised but never answered. Fortunately, for the time being the United States had no serious global rivals —which was why George W. Bush, once he got into office, would have to create one, in the form of the "axis of evil." Russia was only a shambling giant after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those uppity Europeans might in due course become the world's second democratic superpower, but that was unlikely to happen soon. On the other hand, it seemed not only likely but inevitable that—at the opposite end of Eurasia, facing America across the Pacific Ocean —China would become a "new rival," and not a friendly one, if the United States insisted on treating China's rise to great-power status as a "threat."

And that's exactly what any such development was, from the strategic perspective ordained in "Defense Planning Guidance"— a threat. It didn't matter if a modernized, prosperous China (or India, or Indonesia, for that matter) was friendly or not. Its mere emergence as a great power was a "threat" that the United States must prevent from arising. Indeed George W. Bush would start out labeling China as a "strategic competitor in the Pacific basin." Soon, however, even he had to recognize that cooperating with China was vital to US security in many matters, including dealings with North Korea.

That pointed to one fundamental problem with such a domineering approach. In the real world, as oppose^ to the world of radical neocon polemics, what is true for ordinary people is also true for nations. We may feel threatened when the neighbors get a bigger car, or install a bigger swimming pool, but if we don't want garbage dumped on our front lawn, it's better not to treat the neighbors with contempt, let alone announce to them that you, and you alone, are going decide from now on what goes on in the neighborhood. The same holds true at the level of global politics. Even countries as powerful as the United States normally have no choice but to treat other countries, including rival countries, as partners. The business of the world, including the business of pursuing US foreign policy goals, requires a cooperative approach. But suppose the United States chose to act abnormally? Suppose it actually decided to apply Wolfowitz's global version of the Brezhnev Doctrine to China? What could the United States actually do to stop China and its billion-plus people from rivaling and, indeed, someday outstripping the United States—the way, a century earlier, the United States had surpassed the British —to become the single most powerful nation in the world? What options would it have?

Even to mention the kinds of "options" that might actually result in the United States maintaining permanent superiority over China reveals the suicidal nuttiness of the "Defense Planning Guidance" approach. The United States, for instance, could bomb the Chinese back into the Stone Age, as had actually been proposed during the more hysterical phases of the Cold War. Nuclear attack on China's industrial heartland would indeed interrupt its emergence as a "potential rival" — though that was an option few American strategic thinkers still considered advisable, now that China's own nuclear missiles might reach Washington before US missiles reintroduced neolithic culture to the land where more advanced forms of human civilization had flourished for so long.

Another possible way, in Wolfowitz's words, "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival" would be for the United States to encourage radical Maoists to reassert control in China. Unleashing another Cultural Revolution would quite probably retard China's capacity "to generate global power." It would also panic global finance markets, and destroy the vibrant Pacific Rim economy on which the US economy counts for future growth. What about less drastic forms of economic warfare? Reinstating the US trade embargo would slow down China's military as well as its economic development. But it would also destroy the World Trade Organization, and unleash a worldwide depression. It also would mean no more cheap, high-quality videogames and PCs down at the suburban malls, where Republican appeal to the swing vote is essential for keeping George W. Bush, as well as Paul Wolfowitz, on the federal payroll.

Yet Wolfowitz not only proposed preventing China's emergence as "another rival" but proposed precluding such an eventuality, or even the possibility of it ever arising, in "Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia" as well. But how to lobotomize the rest of the world? Strategically speaking, that more or less was the grand global policy "Defense Planning Guidance" ordained.

"Finally," Wolfowitz wrote, "we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Even aspiring? US domination of the world, as propounded here, was not merely to be over the world and each region in it. It was to be a dominion over the world's aspirations as well. And what on earth did he mean by "mechanisms"? These are difficult questions. They are dangerous questions. Both before and after he mounted his mechanical bronco, these are the kinds of questions clueless George W. Bush never bothered to ask the neo-cons.
<font color="#d90000">
The above T.D. Allman expose on Wolfowitz's Neo-Con "Let's Take Over The World" policy is from his book <br>
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1560255625.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" height="305" width="200">
</font></font>

<hr noshade color="#D90000" size="12"><HR>

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Re: Few months before 911 Wolfowitz gave a chilling speech at west point

Good post, interesting video and article following...

 

[African Herbsman]

bump

 

[QueEx]

Re: Few months before 911 Wolfowitz gave a chilling speech at west point

bump. anniversary.

 

[t0k3]

Fascism Anyone?

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm


These are just bullet points from the article from the source above.
Examples are posted under each bullet point of how each is taking place in the U.S. now and in recent times in the article.
There are also many links for further reading at the bottom of the article as well.

14 Points of fascism: The warning signs

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

 

[keysersoze]

Re: Fascism Anyone?

I think you hit all the points of the (new) Republican Party.

 

[t0k3]

Re: Fascism Anyone?

I think you hit all the points of the (new) Republican Party.

I think I hit all the points on what our government has become period.
This is cause and effect,it has little to do with either party(like there's a difference now anyway).
Capitalism/corporatism begets fascism when the well(blue collar America) has been tapped dry.

 

[gonzo8402]

America Lives in a Fascist State - interview

‘America lives in a fascist state’ – trend forecaster

The merger of corporate and government powers in modern America is plain and simple fascism, believes Gerald Celente, the founder of the Trends Research Institute and publisher of Trends Journal.

Celente takes an in-depth look at what AIG and Goldman Sachs really are and the people behind them; explains the policies of the Obama’s administration, and the moral basis for a forthcoming new American Revolution.

[FLASH]<object width="280" height="225">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.russiatoday.com/s/swf/player.swf?file=http://www.russiatoday.com/v/2009-04-19/Celente.flv&image=http://www.russiatoday.com/s/obj/2009-04-19/us-fa.jpg&controlbar=over&skin=http://www.russiatoday.com/s/swf/skin/stylish1.swf"></param>
<embed src="http://www.russiatoday.com/s/swf/player.swf?file=http://www.russiatoday.com/v/2009-04-19/Celente.flv&image=http://www.russiatoday.com/s/obj/2009-04-19/us-fa.jpg&controlbar=over&skin=http://www.russiatoday.com/s/swf/skin/stylish1.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="280" height="225" />
</object>[/FLASH]