zappaunit17 @zappaunit17 ?active 11 months, 3 weeks ago
JPMorgan and the criminalization of the US ruling class
18 March 2013
Paid to Lose
The Progressive Movement is a PR Front for Rich Democrats
by JOHN STAUBER
OCCUPYING OCCUPY FOR WALL STREET DEMOCRATS
After Obama’s 2008 victory the Progressive Movement celebrated itself and continued to solidify with ongoing funding from the Dem elite, playing a significant role in delivering the White House again to the Democrats in 2012. One of their 2012 PR front stunts to benefit the Democrats was launched in early 2012, the “99% Spring.”
In the Fall of 2011, the spontaneous street action known as Occupy Wall Street withstood media derision long enough to earn its respect. It’s images struck a chord during the recession. Overnight protests in major urban areas might not have appealed to the typical Democratic voter, but bashing the rich did. Occupy might have even threatened the Democratic Party had it ever been able to overcome its anarchistic roots and in some way produced a strategy and organization. But its slogan “we are the 99%” resonated widely.
Nothing succeeds like success, and imitation is the most sincere flattery. The Progressive Movement has plenty of bright marketers and messengers who saw the writing on Wall Street. They decided to launch and hype an election year PR campaign to co-opt the message and theme of Occupy Wall Street. They called it the 99% Spring, “Spring” as in the time of year but also as in Arab Spring of 2011. When you don’t have a real Movement of your own, at least cop good language from some others!
The “Dirty War” Pope
16 March 2013
My regards to housekeeping…The site couldn’t look better…
Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster
The progressive ’empathy gap’, a strain of liberal authoritarianism, and a distortion of Holder’s letter are invoked to defend Obama
by Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 March 2013 10.24 EDT
On Rand Paul and other matters of the heart, mind and body…
I’m not a Rand Paul or Ron Paul or Tea Party supporter I assure you…But thanks for the thought…
But when a question is posed such as ”Can the President of the United States assassinate an American citizen on American soil, whenever he wants without due process?” On the floor of the US Senate and an automatic and resounding HELL NO! is not uttered in response we are in some deep shit as citizens of this country… I don’t care if they’re right wing, left wing, center or radical anarchists who ask the question…
But it would have been nice, even though a hollow gesture, in a hollow institution at this point, to have the so-called vanguard of the Democratic Party take the lead, people who I used to expect would naturally do this, instead we end up hearing it from Sen. Rand Paul…A yahoo from the great State of Kentucky….No offense to the great people of Kentucky just their jerk wad politicians…
A guy they can easily dismiss as a nut case… And that very important question gets buried quickly and forgotten then slowly made into the New Normal…And becomes very dangerous..if not now then in the very near future…
Such is the puppet show we call a government these days…And the Zionist Bankers win again and again and again… We get played everyday, day in day out, non stop…24/7…
They have a plan for the future and we are not in it….I’m sorry to say…The 1% are afraid of us and are acting accordingly…I mean hell wouldn’t you? After all the crimes they’ve committed…
And yes, there are a lot of crazy people out there with guns…another fucking thing to worry about…which way they’re pointed and all… America, the crazest place on Earth…A 21st. Century freakshow…Our system is corrupt to the core…
Sad days we live in…
It’s not fear just reality…Something we can navigate together… Hopefully for the good of all…We have our work cut out for us…And I’m sure it’s going to be a very wild ride. And maybe we can right this ship of fools just a little.. So buckle up we’re headed straight for hell and then back again…But don’t forget we have Jazz on our side…
And, as always..It is a pleasure to work with you on these very important matters..
Peace my friends,
Disturbed by Drones? Go Do This at Your City Council
Obama administration claims right to assassinate citizens within the US
By Joseph Kishore
According to the Obama administration, the president has the right to assassinate American citizens within the United States, without charges or any legal process. This claim, contained in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, constitutes the most far-reaching abrogation of constitutional rights and is aimed at establishing the pseudo-legal framework for military rule.
Holder’s letter, the first explicit assertion of a power to extrajudicially kill Americans in their homes, was in response to a question delivered to the Obama administration from Republican Senator Rand Paul. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Holder reiterated and expanded on this position, declaring that the authorization to use military force in the “war on terror” extends to the United States.
In the letter to Paul, Holder responds to a question as to whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil, and without trial.”
Holder’s answers are a series of evasions and absurd rationalizations. He repeats the statement made repeatedly by the administration before, that the “US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention to do so.” He adds that “as a matter of policy”—that is, not as a matter of legality—“we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”
In other words, under circumstances where the executive branch and military decide that police action is not the “best means” of responding to an undefined threat, the military will be deployed to kill people at will.
Holder then declares that under undefined “extraordinary circumstances,” the president could “authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
As two “examples” of such circumstances, Holder cites the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The comparisons are absurd. Pearl Harbor involved a full-scale attack by the Japanese military on Hawaii. At issue, however, is not a response to a military invasion, but the claim that the administration has the right to assassinate American citizens in the United States who are not engaged in any hostile actions. The administration has already killed at least three US citizens abroad, including Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.
As for September 11, the circumstances behind these attacks have yet to be explained, but involved a number of individuals who were being followed by US intelligence agencies.
Holder’s letter is a sweeping declaration of the ability to deploy the military in the United States in response to an “emergency” connected to some past or allegedly future attack. Under such conditions, the military would be given unrestricted powers and the Bill of Rights rendered a dead letter.
Holder expanded his remarks in the course of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, in which the bipartisan support for the assault on democratic rights was on display.
In the course of the testimony, senators from both parties largely avoided the issue or praised Holder and the administration. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is also the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declared that the legal opinions prepared by the administration on assassinating US citizens were “very thoughtful, very impressive” and urged that all of them be made available to the judiciary committee. She added that deploying military force within the United States against US citizens was “something we have to grapple with.”
The greatest praise for Holder came from Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, who is close to the military and intelligence apparatus. Graham lauded the administration’s efforts to “defend the homeland,” singling out the drone assassination program in particular. Then the following exchange took place:
Graham: It is a longstanding proposition in American law that an American citizen who joins forces with our enemies can be considered an enemy combatant, do you agree with that?
Graham: Hypothetically, if there are Patriot missile batteries around this capitol and other key government infrastructure, to protect the capitol from an attack, it would be lawful for those batteries to launch, is that correct?
Graham: When we say that Congress gave every administration the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda, we didn’t exempt the homeland, did we?
Holder: No, I don’t think we did…
The conclusion: Anyone declared by the president to be an “enemy combatant,” including American citizens in the United States, can be summarily executed without any judicial review.
In referring to American citizens who have “joined forces” with the enemy, Graham cited individuals who supported Germany in the Second World War, with which Holder readily agreed. Again, the historical comparison is absurd. Even so, the traditional response of the state under such conditions is to try individuals for treason, in which their alleged crimes must be proven. Now the government asserts the right to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Graham’s introduction of the hypothetical deployment of Patriot missiles by the military around the capitol and other critical institutions makes clear that what is being contemplated is the full militarization of American society.
There were a number of other significant exchanges. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who like Paul is a right-wing libertarian and Tea Party-backed Republican, asked Holder whether the president had the constitutional authority to assassinate an American citizen in the United States with a drone while that person was “sitting quietly in a cafe.”
On four occasions, Holder said such action would not be “appropriate,” deliberately avoiding a statement that it would not be legal. In response to repeated questioning from Cruz, Holder finally indicated that his reference to such action not being appropriate should be translated as a “no”—apparently suggesting that it would not be constitutional.
This statement, however, was conditioned on the premise that the person involved did not pose an “imminent” threat. The requirement of “imminence” is also included in the administration’s white paper on assassinating US citizens abroad; however, this is essentially meaningless. The document states that imminence “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, asked Holder, “Do you believe Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the president from using US drones against US citizens?”
Holder replied that in his view such a law “would not be constitutional” as it would “run contrary to the Article II powers” of the executive branch—that is to say, the section relating to the president’s authority as commander-in-chief of the military.
Politicians of both parties are participating in a conspiracy against the most basic democratic rights. Earlier this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12 to 3 in favor of the nomination of John Brennan—the individual most closely associated with the assassination program—to head the CIA. All Democrats voted in favor.
Holder’s comments aroused almost no comment from the American media. On the evening news Wednesday, the story was almost entirely buried, with only brief reference to a filibuster stunt carried out by Paul, a right-wing libertarian Republican, against the nomination of Brennan. The abrogation of the Bill of Rights provokes little more than a few raised eyebrows.
The essential target of these measures is the emergence of domestic opposition within the United States to the policies of the financial aristocracy that controls both big-business parties. Under conditions of deepening polarization, and as the ruling class is implementing measures that are overwhelmingly opposed by the vast majority of the population, the government is actively preparing dictatorial forms of rule.
03.06.13 – 11:34 PM
Filiblizzard: Left Meets Right
by Abby Zimet
Having vowed to keep speaking till he could no longer speak in the name of civil liberties, Sen. Rand Paul is in his 12th hour of filibustering, with some help, the confirmation of John Brennan to lead the CIA over the issue of drone strikes – winning, in the process, the support of odd bedfellows: Code Pink, Ted Cruz, Glenn Greenwald, Marco Rubio. Live on C-Span and Twitter.
One Tweet: That awkward moment when your Nobel-Peace-Prize winning President won’t say whether or not he will kill Americans on American soil.
Live Blog: Rand Paul’s Talking Filibuster of John Brennan
By JORDAN BLOOM • March 6, 2013, 12:22 PM
History in the making….Where are all my progressive Democrats?In reply to - zappaunit17 posted an update: http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?src=cspan2&msg=You+are+watching+the+C-SPAN+Networks&start=218.76&end=-1 Sen. Rand Paul Filibuster… · View
Sen. Rand Paul Filibuster…
History in the making….Where are all my progressive Democrats?
actually up the lobby’s ass they are the ones who buys the politician. i wonder where they get the numbers from to report on donations. when a man tells me that he personally gave bobby jindal 3 million dollars when he was running for govenor the first time that has had me thinking about the donation reports and how low the number is.of course the man got 2 contracts amounting to 100 million and 300 million respectively afterwards so he got what he paid for.
Hence Sylvia Mathews Burwell as Budget Director. If u want a great laugh, read the
@fwiw ”Philanthropic director as head of OMB. Not sure putting somebody in charge of watching how money is spent who’s currently in charge of giving away other people’s money. Our current deficit shows we already have enough people like that in government.”
☛ http://tinyurl.com/cmff3kg – Malcolm’s BAKB Revisited, and Fear
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil
By Adam Serwer| Tue Mar. 5, 2013 12:55 PM PST
The Militarization of Policing in America
Towns Don’t Need Tanks
American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war. Federal funding in the billions of dollars has allowed state and local police departments to gain access to weapons and tactics created for overseas combat theaters – and yet very little is known about exactly how many police departments have military weapons and training, how militarized the police have become, and how extensively federal money is incentivizing this trend. It’s time to understand the true scope of the militarization of policing in America and the impact it is having in our neighborhoods. On March 6th, ACLU affiliates in 24 states filed over 177 public records requests with law enforcement agencies and National Guard offices to determine the extent to which federal funding and support has fueled the militarization of state and local police departments. Stay tuned as this project develops.
The stock market bonanza
6 March 2013
Black Agenda Report (Radio)
Supreme Court Puts U.S. Spy Agency “Above the Law”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s dismissal of a suit against the National Security Agency’s wholesale spying on telephone and internet systems “essentially holds the NSA above the law,” said Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Committee. Unless the plaintiffs can document that they, personally, have been monitored, they “have no right to appear in a federal court to challenge the program,” Shahid explained. But, since the program is secret, it is all but impossible for individuals to prove their case.
Interesting what Phil says about the government sending Dizzy as a peace emissary to the middle east….
- Load More