In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”

Continued Sunstein: “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

Sunstein said government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Some “conspiracy theories” recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

• “The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”
• “The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”
• “The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile.”
• “The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy.”
• “That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.”
• “The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.”

Sunstein allowed that “some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.”

He continued: “The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s,the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of ‘mind control.’”

Sunstein’s paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November’s climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Sunstein: Ban ‘right wing’ rumors

Sunstein’s paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.

WND reported that in a recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors.”

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “Fairness Doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

Sunstein wrote it is “worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well.”

He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

“It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech,’” he writes.

Writes Sunstein: “The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, “stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues.”

He continues: “In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts’ unwillingness to “require something like a Fairness Doctrine” to be a result of “the judiciary’s lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority.”

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

“Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned,” Sunstein writes.

But, he says, “at the very least, regulative ‘fairness doctrines’ would raise no real doubts” constitutionally.

Source: Information Liberation

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory: 9/11 Episode exposes ‘found’ black boxes

UPI Editor Equates 9/11 Truth Activists With Fort Hood Killer

9/11 Truth Hit Piece: You Are Not Much Different Then The NAZIS

After a recent attempted terrorist attack set off a debate about full-body X-rays at airports, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll finds that Americans lean more toward giving up some of their liberty in exchange for more safety.

The survey found 51 percent of Americans agreeing that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.”

At the same time, 36 percent agreed that “some of the government’s proposals will go too far in restricting the public’s civil liberties.”

The rest were undecided or said their opinions would depend on circumstances.

As has happened often since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the renewed debate over security is hinging on the balance between personal liberty and safety. The suspect’s success in boarding a Detroit-bound plane allegedly carrying explosives is setting off calls for full body scans, which some find an invasion of privacy, and for new restrictions on passengers once they’re in flight.

To stop terrorists, Americans look first to better governmental coordination and use of intelligence, the poll found, with 81 percent calling that effective and only 11 percent calling it ineffective.

Body scans or full body searches at airports ranked second, named by 74 percent as an effective way to stop terrorism. Nineteen percent called those measures ineffective.

Further restrictions on carry-on baggage ranked third, called effective by 57 percent, ineffective by 34 percent.

New in-flight restrictions such as banning the use of laptops and electronic equipment or restricting people to their seats ranked last, called effective by 50 percent and ineffective by 42 percent.

A solid majority of Americans still feel safe flying, but the number has dropped.

The survey found 75 percent saying they feel safe, down from 86 percent in 2007, and 24 percent saying they don’t feel safe in the air, up from 13 percent in 2007.

Even with the Christmas Day bombing attempt and all the news coverage of it and its aftermath, terrorism remains very low on the national priority list. Just 4 percent called it the country’s most important problem.

The economy and jobs remained the top issue on people’s minds by far, named as the top problem by 48 percent of Americans polled.

Other domestic issues were cited by 31 percent, topped by 9 percent who said that health care was the biggest problem.

Fourteen percent cited some aspect of war or foreign policy, including the 4 percent who named terrorism.

The poll found that 52 percent approved of the way President Barack Obama is doing his job, and 45 percent disapproved.

METHODOLOGY:

These are some of the findings of a poll conducted from last Thursday through Monday. For the survey, Ipsos interviewed a nationally representative, randomly selected sample of 1,336 people 18 and older across the United States. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within 2.68 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would’ve been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including coverage and measurement error. These data were weighted to ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the U.S. population according to census figures. Respondents had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish.

Source: McClatchy

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe

The Foiled terrorist plot is a perfect opportunity for a Fascist Police State

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

US Military using immigrant labor in trade for citizenship

Video: The Hashish Army- Afghanistan. Is this what we are fighting for?????

New President, Same Old Scam

In October unbeknownst to most of us, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Obama administration would reverse the Bush administration’s opposition to the UN’s proposed International Small Arms Treaty. This will clear the way for the treaty to reach a vote by the U.N. General Assembly. Seven countries, led by the British, are trying to restart U.N. efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms. The goal is to “regulate the global arms trade” and “prevent the illegal transfer of guns.”

John Duncan, Britain’s ambassador for multilateral arms control and disarmament, describes the UN’s disarmament committee as launching point for a global treaty. The British believe their very stringent gun laws are the right direction for all countries. Now they intend to use the United Nations to bring their gun control model to the United States.

The irony of this effort is that since virtually banning guns in 1997, the UK has watched violent crime skyrocket by as much as 77% in some studies. The British Mail Online reports, “In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.” As a result the U.K. now has the highest violent crime rate in the European Union.

So what could this treaty require of its’ signatories, here is a quick overview according to The National Association For Gun Rights:

“If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

• Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
• CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
• BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
• Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme. To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe. These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.  Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.” So Patriots, here is yet another plan designed to usurp your rights which we need to defeat in 2010.

The gun-grabbers in the Obama administration and at the U.N. do not want us to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical treaty which if ratified steps on our 2^nd Amendment rights. They (the UN) have been unsuccessfully trying to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” down our throats since the mid-1990s. But this time they have an administration that appears willing to play along. The risk is high and the stakes are higher!

Wake up, America! Attempts to thwart our freedoms should be no surprise the anti-gun attitude of the current administration. We must turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late! It takes 67 Senators to vote to ratify a treaty. Every freedom loving citizen needs to contact their Senator and tell them to vote against any attempt to ratify this treaty. This is just another attempt to give the U.N. jurisdiction over U.S. policy. On the heels of Obama’s recent Executive Order to provide Interpol with diplomatic level immunity from U.S. law and Constitutional behavior this is another slap in the face to our sovereignty.

You can sign the NAGR’s internet petition at: http://www.nagr.org/UNpetition1.aspx?pid=n1a

Restore the Republic, Reject Global Governance!

“…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” – Thomas Jefferson

Source: War On You

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

IMF chief hails ‘new era of collaborative global governance

The Foiled terrorist plot is a perfect opportunity for a Fascist Police State

Why Wait? Put Me in Jail Now

I have always taken it as a good thing that libertarians are detested by both the left and the right. To me it is proof positive that we libertarians are in the right. After all, both the left and the right are fundamentally the same – authoritarian statists who wish to use the force of government to make society in their own images and to compel others to live in ways that they approve of. And let’s be honest, both the left and the right do truly hate us and whatever we may ostensibly have in common with either – say free markets with the right and human rights with the left (of course neither really supports either except in qualified and conditional ways) – what they find detestable about us involves fundamental differences which can never be overcome as long as they remain “left” and “right,” as long as they remain wedded to that dialectic.

I’ll be honest, at this point in my life I find political philosophy to be tiresome or maybe I have just become tired and lazy. Beyond considering the merits of minarchism versus anarchism I don’t like to go much into any of it anymore. Debates about the implications of the privatization of this particular thing versus government control of that seem to me pointless. From my perspective, if you believe you own your own life, if you believe in liberty, there is nothing to debate. You are never going to convince anyone who doesn’t believe in or understand liberty in a meaningful way to come over to your side. At best, the arguments will all be utilitarian in nature and both sides are going to make counter arguments which are often essentially meaningless – what if this scenario occurred or what would happen in that particular circumstance.

Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy watching YouTubes of my libertarian heroes – most associated with Lew’s site and Mises and way too many to mention. And, of course, the great Dr. Paul – but when I see a libertarian debate a statist of whatever stripe the futility of it is tiring. It is as though they are talking different languages. It is particularly trying when I see what we often refer to as a “beltway libertarian” (think Cato, Reason) debating a main stream “progressive” or a main stream “conservative.” The feeling I get is that they are pretending at disagreeing, both of them really committed to never changing anything fundamentally.

The bottom line is that I have been troubled by the inability of libertarians in general to make any substantial inroads into the minds and hearts and thinking of most Americans, which is fairly ironic when you consider that the values on which this country was founded and the values continually espoused when speaking reverently about this country are distinctly libertarian values. Funny how they sound so foreign and unfathomable (and dangerous), except in the abstract, to so many devoted Americans. It’s fine to talk about dedication to liberty, but it’s something else altogether to actually consider living by the principles of liberty. It strikes me that whenever libertarians and those who are suspicious of libertarians talk they invariably talk past each other. It strikes me that our approach as libertarians has been off the mark. We are never going to win by talking principles and philosophy. The only way we are going to reach those who can not hear us now is to show them what they are missing and what they are losing by being afraid to seriously consider liberty and the kind of world they could inhabit by embracing the principles of liberty.

Also invariably critics on the left accuse libertarians of being “selfish” and “greedy” and being for rich people and against ordinary people. This charge is so far off the mark and beside the point it is almost impossible to respond to. It’s like accusing a computer of being short. It has nothing to do with what a computer is. But we get stuck in those kinds of arguments. For me, the best or at least most effective argument for libertarianism is that it is the one approach to governance that has the greatest hope of producing a humane society. The problem is to find a way to explain to people why that is so. “Progressives” like to consider themselves humane and singular in their concern for their fellow man. I don’t doubt the good intentions of those who consider themselves progressive (although, given the history of mankind you would have be somewhat dim to believe collectivism of any sort can lead to anything except misery and misery primarily for the most vulnerable and unconnected), but they seem not to be able to see the implications and unintended consequences of their philosophy.

Moreover, they tend to be primarily concerned with how they feel about their supposed altruism rather than the actual consequences of their initiatives. There are multitudes of examples of the way good intentions and supposedly progressive legislation has led to the suffering of those it is intended to help. This current recession/depression is a typical example, due in large part to the “ownership society” initiative which was intended to put anybody who wanted into a home of their own. It sounded good, but where are so many of those people now? How many of those people who could not pay their mortgages with their teaser rates are now on the street and have nothing?

This new healthcare plan will almost certainly lead to the same sort of thing. How many small businesses will go under or not be started at all and how many other businesses will cut back, all of which leading to job losses for those who need jobs the most. Again, the most vulnerable will end up suffering for the good intentions of those who think they know best how to arrange society. And then there is the current hysteria over global warming – sorry, climate change. How many of those who can least afford it will suffer the consequences of programs like cap and trade or carbon taxes? The list is really endless.

For many progressives it all seems to be about how they feel about themselves and the sense of self-righteousness that their “generosity” affords them. Of course, self-righteousness is hardly the domain of the left. Having lived through the reign of terror of the “religious right” and their devotion to their belief that they are God’s true representatives on earth, well, it was scary stuff. The left thinks they are on the side of the angels and the right thinks God is on their side. Libertarians don’t presume that they can divine the intentions of the almighty beyond the fundamental belief that we are all created equal and are endowed by our creator (whatever “creator” means to you) with certain inalienable rights.

The central libertarian principle is the principle of nonaggression. Taken to its logical conclusions it pretty much covers everything that is the cause of so much consternation in the life of our society. You would think that no one could possibly have a problem with this principle, but many people do. In order for the nonaggression principle to mean anything you have to believe you own yourself and, by extension, that you own the fruits of your endeavors. For any statist/collectivist self-ownership is conditional. In other words, you only own yourself to the extent society says you own yourself which is really the same as saying you don’t own yourself at all. You can make the decisions about your life that society/the state says you can make. Ultimately and inescapably, in the statist’s view, society/the state owns everything and anything you own, including yourself – you only own conditionally.

If you follow that logic then society cannot aggress against you since they own you. They cannot aggress against your property, since it is really society’s property. It is amazing to me how many are comfortable with this perspective on things. Without self-ownership the nonaggression principle means nothing. It may be that people don’t generally recognize how they are owned by society/the state and unless they are personally and painfully inconvenienced by their lifetime indenturement or their serfdom. Until it is your property being appropriated by the state by eminent domain and until it is you who is prevented from finding relief from your illness by laws dictating what substances you may or may not ingest into your own body you can continue to pretend to yourself that you are sovereign over your own existence. You can argue until you are blue in the face that conscription and income tax are both forms of slavery and are unjust in their conception, but until people feel it in their gut, they won’t get it. It’s just the price we pay for being “free.”

If you ask virtually any American if they are free the vast majority will tell you yes, this in spite of the multitude of ways we are not free. Most Germans thought they were free under Hitler. You are free only to the extent the government and society does not want anything from you beyond what you are already willing and ready to give and if you were to decide you were not willing and ready to give those things you already do, you would quickly see how free you are not. My argument and the argument of most libertarians is that personal, individual liberty over all aspects of our lives is the only way to achieve all the legitimate, defensible desires of both the right and the left. It is the rational hope for ever having a humane society with liberty and justice for all and the only way for both the right and the left to ever get the things they claim matter to them is to risk embracing liberty in all aspects of life.

This is what we are not communicating to those who oppose us. What they don’t see is that we want all of the things that they legitimately want, but we actually have a way to achieve it. If you want social justice, it is only liberty that can give it to you. If you want prosperity and opportunity and sustainability, if you want equality (in a legitimate sense), if you want peace and commerce and goodwill between men, liberty is the best hope for achieving those things. Libertarians are also often accused of being utopian and that for real liberty to work we must all be men of goodwill and compassion. This is exactly wrong. It is those who think they can fashion society to fit some ideal they imagine who are utopian. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy which actually takes into account the fallibility and corruptibility of man by recognizing that the last thing we should do is give men power over the lives of other men. If man cannot be trusted to govern their own lives as the left and right believe, then how can they possibly be entrusted with the power to govern the lives of others? They like to believe that the best and the brightest will gravitate toward positions of authority over others. Talk about utopian. The message we need to get across that we have not is that it is liberty with all its implications – for each of us individually, for commerce and enterprise and for everything else – that is the best hope for the kinds of society both the left and right dream of. A society where all men can live in peace and prosper and pursue happiness and find social justice and equal opportunity and learn to love his fellow man. There is a reason why that ubiquitous Ron Paul Revolution sign had the word love highlighted in it. If you really love your fellow man set him free to chart his own course and to follow his own dreams instead of some dream the collective has dreamed for him. Set people free to be everything they can be and the human race can achieve things we can now only dream of.

Source: LewRockwell

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Tea Party Purge — A Cause Without a Rebel

Libertarian Was Forced To Take A Thorazine Injection (Antipsychotic Drug) Because He tried To Inform People Of Their RIGHTS!

Obama Website Calls Opponents “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”

So, on Christmas Eve, at a time when most people were paying no attention to the shenanigans going on in Washington, DC, the Senate of the United States of America pushed forward with its health care agenda that puts the health care of America in the hands of politicians rather than physicians. No surprise there. It seems to me that most really terrible, tyrannical, intrusive big government collectivist legislation is passed in the dark of night on the sly with as little fanfare as possible, like the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Either that, or legislative monstrosities are rushed through after a horrific event while the people are still in shock like the Patriot Act was. Either way, these bills are more and more often hundreds or thousands of pages long, intrusive, and unpopular and so the congress critters that want them passed for the benefit of their high level friends rather than for the people try to pass them with as little publicized dissent as possible.

So it is with the health care bill. Who knows what little secretive controls have been put into this tome they call a law? Do you remember the Patriot Act, how many freedom violating usurpations were written into it? Do you remember the bailouts, how much control was taken from private hands and handed to government? It’s not enough for the authoritarians at the top of the government hierarchy to control the major industries and banks in this country. It’s not enough for them to create the ability to know every little electronic communiqué the ordinary folk send to each other. They must also control the way we go about seeking health care. They must make certain that each and every one of us pays their fair share to the health insurance industry so that Caesar can more easily collect his tribute. They want to be certain that no longer can a patient pay his doctor directly without a third party connected to government getting their hands in on what should be private business. They will go so far as to make it a crime for anyone to seek health care without insurance.

I remember growing up and learning that one thing that made America such a great place as compared to other nations was its lack of political prisoners. That’s simply not true anymore. We are all political prisoners. We are prisoners of a system that doesn’t care. Certainly those who rot in prisons and jails across this nation of ours who were sent there for victimless crimes are political prisoners. Those who refused to pay the extortionists the taxes they demanded, those who decided to use a medicinal plant that was not on the AMA approved list, those who simply refused to obey a police officer’s unlawful command, these people did not harm anyone nor did they damage or steal anyone’s property. They did not violate another’s rights, and yet they have their own rights violated by the state. They are imprisoned for defending their inalienable rights and therefore they are political prisoners. The United States of America is no longer a nation of free men. The United States of America has become that which it used to fear.

As the federal government continues trouncing more and more of our natural human rights, as it hides behind the iron security curtain to excuse itself when arresting and silencing those whose only crimes were to question the legitimacy of federal law, how long before they start to arrest even the most unobtrusive blogger for having an opinion? They need not wait until 2014 when I still won’t buy their crappy health insurance to arrest me. They don’t need to wait until 2014 to start letting everyone know that they are in charge and we will do as they say, buy and sell as they want, or else. It is already happening. Instead of passing “health care reform” that puts yet another economic sector in total government control, why not just start arresting everyone who disagrees with government mandates right now and be done with it? Why not just declare unending economic and security crises and use those as excuses for complete and total government takeover of all human activity?

Of course, the corporate political elite want to do this as stealthily as possible. They want to keep people from thinking for themselves, just as they’d like to keep them from conducting their own business when it comes to health care, or anything else for that matter. They strive to create an entitlement mentality in the populace and they’ve been quite successful at promoting this mindset, at least during my lifetime. The more people who are dependent on the federal government, the more power the federal government can laud over the public, the better off the corporate political elite are. The less people think for themselves, the more they let the federal government regulate their day to day lives and businesses, the more dependent on the corporate elite they become. It’s a vicious circle and if they move too quickly the people may suddenly be forced to think for themselves and the circle will be broken. That’s why so many of the corporate political elite feed the monstrous entitlement mentality of the public.

It was Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) who said a couple weeks back that she felt it was immoral to vote against the current health care reform we are presently being burdened with. Who is this woman to talk about morality? Indeed, on close examination it becomes obvious that it is immoral to vote for this reform, as well as for so many other bills that have been forced through congress the last few decades. It is never moral to forcefully redistribute wealth. It is never moral to force one group of people to work for another group. Free people conduct business on a voluntary basis with each other and decide for themselves where to spend their money. Free people can determine on their own what products and services are worth and how much time and effort should be put into acquiring said products and services. If one has to mandate certain aspects of a business and force people to engage in that business under the threat of imprisonment than the true value of the product or service cannot be known.

The immorality of Senator Mikulski and all who voted for this “health care reform” becomes even more obvious when one realizes there were free market reforms that could have been enacted which would have lowered the cost of health care insurance for all and helped remove the hand of government from the industry. After all, nowhere in the Constitution has the congress been granted power to regulate health care. That would be left to state governments under the tenth amendment. The simplest answer to the problem of the cost of health insurance would have been to allow the citizens of one state to buy health insurance from another state and we would have seen the cost of insurance go down and the quality go up as the insurance companies were forced to compete with each other for business and the states were forced to ease regulations to keep the insurance businesses in their jurisdiction. But these reforms wouldn’t have allowed the federal government to grow and so they weren’t considered by the control freak leaders of the corporate power elite.

The charade of government health care control becomes even more evident when we look back at even recent history. It was the free markets that gave this nation a health care system that was the envy of the world. It wasn’t until regulations were put in place that the system began to falter. It was the regulations themselves that have brought the system to its knees and created the crisis (if indeed there is a crisis) that we experience at present. More government is not the answer to our nation’s health care woes, it will be the cause of more and greater woes. The immorality of voting for such socialistic health reform becomes even more egregious when considering such trends.

This health care bill has failed to address neither the concerns of those in favor of personal liberty and free markets nor the concerns of those who wish a total collectivist scheme to ensure access to health care by those least able to afford it. Instead, politicians have tried to compromise and as such have given more power to those who caused the problems in the first place. That seems to be what government does best, cause a problem, then take freedom from those who can fix the problem and give more power to those who caused it so they can cause bigger problems. Security failed on 911 and we gave the security industrial complex more power with the Patriot Act, and they continue to fail. The Economy failed in 2008 and we gave the banks more power with the bailouts and they continue to fail. Now the claim is made that the health insurance industry is failing and the answer is to give the health insurance companies more power by legislating into a law a monopolistic health care system paid for by higher taxes and backed by the threat of fines and imprisonment? When are we going to learn?

I don’t plan on taking part in this charade anymore, so they may as well arrest me now. I know of at least one doctor who plans on leaving the country if this bill passes and moving to Poland, of all places. She has her choice of the US, Canada or Poland, she’s a citizen of all three, and for now she chooses to live and work in the US, but if this bill becomes law she will chose to move to Poland. That should make you think. I don’t know how many other doctors feel like her, but I hope that for those trapped in the US the spirit of civil disobedience and non cooperation rises. Bad law does not need to be obeyed. Perhaps when they are forced to arrest good, decent people for not buying health insurance the masses will be shaken from their slumber. If that is what it takes to restore this nation’s founding principles, then so be it, though I do hope that this drive toward socialism is reversed long before 2014. I do pray that mass civil disobedience begins soon, before the power of the central planners is consolidated.

Source: UnCover The News

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Tea Party Purge — A Cause Without a Rebel

Is America Still a Nation of Laws?

The Constitutional Bankruptcy of our Republic

The giant banks are treating the American Citizen like we work for them, are holding the economy hostage, and are taking our deposits and using them to speculate in casino style gambling.

They’ve bought and paid for Congress and the White House. See this, this and this.

Will Americans exercise our power – see this and this – or become serfs to a permanent banking royalty?

An economist says the healthcare bill “is just another bailout of the financial system”, and lawyers say that it is unconstitutional.

Will we defeat this giveaway to the insurance giants, or become permanent slaves to mandatory insurance requirements?

Top scientists, economists and environmentalists all say that cap and trade is a scam which won’t significantly reduce C02 emissions, and will only help in making the financial players who crashed the economy even more wealthy.

Will we defeat this worthless scam, or allow the failed banks like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup – who have already taken many billions of taxpayer dollars – to make a fortune off of this con game at our expense?

Will Americans reclaim our nation in 2010 from the thugs and con artists, or put our heads down and stay subservient while the little we have left in the way of money, resources and dignity is stolen by the giant banks, insurance companies and carbon trading players?

Source: Washington’s Blog

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado

The Criminalization of Protest

Can We Rescue the Republic Before the Dark Politics Take Over?

Tea Party Purge — A Cause Without a Rebel

Police and politicians ignore the First Amendment when we need it the most.

I’ve lived in the Washington, D.C., area for the better part of the last 10 years. So I’ve seen my share of demonstrations, although more often than not I just try to avoid the traffic nightmares they cause. Among the various classes of protests—pro-life, anti-war, environmental, and now tea parties—the most destructive are the anti-globalization marches. So when cops clashed with anti-globalization demonstrators at the Pittsburgh G-20 summit in September, it was easy to assume that most of the altercations represented justified police responses to overzealous protesters.

But a number of disturbing photographs, videos, and witness accounts told a different story. Along with similar evidence from other recent high-stakes political events, they reveal an increasing, disquieting willingness to smother even peaceful dissent.

On the Friday afternoon before the G-20 meeting kicked into high gear, a student at the University of Pittsburgh snapped a photo showing a University of Pittsburgh police officer directing traffic at a roadblock. What’s troubling is what he’s wearing: camouflage military fatigues. It’s difficult to discern a practical reason why a man working for an urban police department would need to wear camouflage, especially while patrolling an economic summit. He’s a civilian dressed like a soldier. The symbolism is clear, and it affects the attitudes of both the cops wearing the clothes and the people they’re policing.

The campus cop wasn’t alone. Members of police departments from across the country came to Pittsburgh to help during the summit, most of them dressed in paramilitary garb. In one widely circulated video, several officers dressed entirely in camouflage emerge from an unmarked car, apprehend a young backpack-wearing protester, stuff him into the car, and drive off. The sequence evoked the “disappearances” associated with Latin American dictatorships or Soviet Bloc countries. When Matt Drudge linked to the video, he described the officers in it as members of the military. They weren’t, but it’s easy to understand how someone might make that mistake.

In another video, members of a police unit from Chicago who took vacation time to work at the summit prop up a handcuffed protester and gather behind him. Another officer then snaps what appears to be a trophy photo. Two men in faraway Queens were arrested for posting the locations of riot police on Twitter, as though they were revealing the location of troops on a battlefield. Another video shows dozens of police in full body armor confronting and eventually macing onlookers (who weren’t even protesters) in the neighborhood of Oakland, far from the site of the summit, as a recorded voice orders any and all to disperse. Students at the University of Pittsburgh claim cops fired tear gas canisters into dorm rooms, used sound cannons, and shot bean bags and rubber bullets.

The most egregious actions took place on September 25, when police began ordering students who were in public spaces to disperse despite the fact that they had broken no laws. Those who moved too slowly, even from public spaces on their own campus or in front of their dorms, were arrested. A university spokesman said the aim was to break up crowds that “had the potential of disrupting normal activities.” Apparently a group of people needn’t actually break any laws to be put in jail. They must only possess the “potential” to do so, at which point not moving quickly enough for the cops’ liking could result in an arrest. That standard is a license for the police to arrest anyone anywhere in the city at any time, regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong. In all, 190 people were arrested during the summit, including at least two journalists.

It can’t be easy to both keep order and protect civil liberties at such events. But that doesn’t mean police and city officials shouldn’t be expected to try. Yes, some protesters damaged some property at the G-20 summit, although there wasn’t much of that this time around. But the presence of a few unruly demonstrators doesn’t give the police carte blanche to crack down on every young person in the general vicinity, nor should it give the city free rein to suppress all public protest. It’s unfortunate that when the global press and the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies came to Pittsburgh, the images that emerged were not of a society that values free expression and constitutional rights but of one willing to grant police powers normally seen in authoritarian states.

This projection of overwhelming force at big events is becoming more common. At last year’s Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, police conducted peremptory raids on the homes of protesters before the convention began. In all, 672 people were jailed, including at least 39 journalists. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 442 of those 672 later had their charges either dropped or dismissed.

Four years before that, more than 1,800 people were arrested at the previous Republican National Convention in New York City. Ninety percent were never charged with a crime. One notorious photo from the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver shows a small mass of protesters, zoned far off from where any delegates or media representatives could hear them, surrounded by two walls of riot police who outnumbered them at least 2 to 1. Denver’s police union later issued a commemorative T-shirt of the event emblazoned with an illustration of a menacing cop wielding a baton and the slogan, “We get up early to beat the crowds.”

The trend may have started at the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, which saw both actual rioting and police overkill. Mayor Paul Schell not only declared a state of emergency, imposed a curfew, and designated swaths of the city “no-protest” zones; he actually banned civilian possession of gas masks. Police then gassed entire city blocks. The victims included many owners of the stores the police were ostensibly protecting from looters. Assistant Police Chief Ed Joiner, who was in charge of security for the event, would later tell reporters that future summits should be held only in destinations with military governments.

These are precisely the kinds of events where free speech and the freedom to protest need protection the most: when influential figures make high-level decisions with far-reaching consequences. Instead, we see the opposite. The higher the event’s profile, the more powerful the players involved, and the more important the decisions being made, the more determined police and politicians are to make sure dissent is kept as far away from the VIPs as possible. Or silenced entirely.

Source: Reason

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Civil Disobedience Is Not Terrorism

Portable pain weapon may end up in police hands

G20 police break up assembly at University of Pittsburgh: Video

Wearechange schools Pittsburgh police on constitution @ g20

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said there is “no place in the Constitution” that grants Congress the authority to require that Americans purchase health insurance, as both the Senate and House health care bills do. She added that the health care bill recently passed by the Senate is a “trampling of individual rights.”

At the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Dec. 23, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Hutchinson (R-Tex.), “Where in the Constitution do you think Congress is finding the authority to mandate that someone purchase health insurance?”

Senator Hutchinson said:  “There is no place in the Constitution that allows this trampling of individual rights, and I am going to make a point of order that it tramples on the 10^th Amendment as well, the rights of states to regulate insurance. And, in my state, we have a self-insurance plan for state employees and teachers, and the federal government now has the right to intrude on that – and it’s not in the Constitution either.”

The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed early on Dec. 24, Christmas Eve, on a strict party-line vote of 60 to 39. (One Republican skipped the vote and the two Independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined with the 58 Democrats to pass the measure.)

The legislation requires every American to purchase health insurance either individually or through their employer. If they do not, they can be penalized with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year.

Speaking on the floor, Hutchison took issue with the argument Democrats have made that the mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

“I want to talk about another area that I think is a stretch in this bill and that is that apparently the individual mandate is being justified by the Commerce clause of our Constitution,” she said.

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

Hutchison continued, “Now, the Commerce clause basically says that no state may impede interstate commerce. You may say, out in America, ‘Uh, I don’t see the connection. I’m going to be mandated to buy health insurance or be fined if I don’t, because states can’t impede interstate commerce?’”

“Well, I would agree with people out there that that seems like a disconnect,” Hutchison said.

The Republican Steering Committee also believes the provision requiring people to buy insurance or face a fine is outside the purview of Congress and launched a constitutional challenge led by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) last week. The pair of senators called a “point of order” to force Democrats to vote on whether they believed the mandate was Constitutional.

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” DeMint said on the floor.

In 1994, when the Clinton administration tried to pass its own health care reform legislation, also with an individual mandate included, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that it was “unprecedented” in legislative history.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

At 3 p.m. on Wednesday, however, Democrats defeated the point of order and pressed on with a number of other procedural votes required before final passage of the bill on Thursday morning.

Before stepping onto the floor, Hutchison told CNSNews.com that she would point out why the individual mandate to carry health insurance also contradicts the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. She told CNSNews.com, “[A]nd I am going to make a point of order that it tramples on the 10th Amendment as well, the rights of states to regulate insurance. And, in my state, we have a self-insurance plan for state employees and teachers, and the federal government now has the right to intrude on that – and it’s not in the Constitution either.”

The 10th Amendment reserves those powers not expressly given to branches of the federal government to the individual states. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Senate legislation will have to be merged with the health care reform bill that passed narrowly in the House of Representatives in November, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The resulting compromise between the two bodies, called the “conference report,” then must be passed by vote in both chambers of Congress before President Barack Obama could sign it into law.

Opposition to the bill has become a rallying call for Republicans as public support for it has foundered below 40 percent in national polls recently.

A transcript of the exchange between Sen. Hutchinson (R-Tex.) and CNSNews.com follows below:

CNSNews.com: “Where in the Constitution do you think Congress is finding the authority to mandate that someone purchase health insurance?”

Senator Hutchinson: “There is no place in the Constitution that allows this trampling of individual rights, and I am going to make a point of order that it tramples on the 10th Amendment as well, the rights of states to regulate insurance. And, in my state, we have a self-insurance plan for state employees and teachers, and the federal government now has the right to intrude on that – and it’s not in the Constitution either.”

Source: CNSNews

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Nurses explain how health bill could make crisis worse

Healthcare bill to pay 100% for expansion of Nebraska’s Medicaid in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s 60th vote

Government Health Care: The Next Step On the Road to Tyranny and Slavery

Did America slip into a semiliterate, polarized, pre-fascist state over the past decade or so, allowing greedy oligarchs and corporate elites to run the government? Two books I recently read offer reasonably persuasive evidence and arguments that the country did, and a third suggests that dictatorial mindsets could besiege Americans, with an assist from the Internet, if they don’t come to their more deliberative senses. Each of the books offers an informed diagnosis of the dangers that widespread ignorance and ideological polarization pose for American democracy, though none offers a comprehensive treatment for the malaise.

I read the three books in less than two weeks; friends ask how that was possible. The trick is to avoid not only Facebook and Twitter but also: celebrity news, cable news, Oprah, Jerry Springer, American Idol, The Swan, other reality-TV shows, professional wrestling, violent pornography, positive psychology and right-wing Christian fundamentalism.

The latter list includes some of the spectacularly mind-numbing American pursuits that Chris Hedges examines in Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. Hedges submits that while they mesmerized large portions of the American citizenry, CEOs being paid millions of dollars a year to run companies that feed on taxpayer money usurped our government — with the help of elected officials bought by campaign contributions and tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists who now write many of the nation’s laws.

“Those captivated by the cult of celebrity do not examine voting records or compare verbal claims with written and published facts and reports,” Hedges writes. “The reality of their world is whatever the latest cable news show, political leader, advertiser, or loan officer says is reality. The illiterate, semiliterate, and those who live as though they are illiterate are effectively cut off from the past. They live in an eternal present. They do not understand the predatory loan deals that drive them into foreclosure and bankruptcy. They cannot decipher the fine print on credit card agreements that plunge them into unmanageable debt. They repeat thought-terminating clichés and slogans. They seek refuge in familiar brands and labels. … Life is a state of permanent amnesia, a world in search of new forms of escapism and quick, sensual gratification.”

Of course, they did not get into this clueless state by themselves. They were manipulated by “agents, publicists, marketing departments, promoters, script writers, television and movie producers, advertisers, video technicians, photographers, bodyguards, wardrobe consultants, fitness trainers, pollsters, public announcers, and television news personalities who create the vast stage for illusion,” Hedges continues. “They are the puppet masters. … The techniques of theater have leeched into politics, religion, education, literature, news, commerce, warfare, and crime.”

I know those fools are out there — many millions of them. I might even be one. But what is absolutely maddening about this book is Hedges’ penchant for stating sweeping, generalized claims as absolutes. And yet this master of divinity turned New York Times war correspondent become sociological scholar often bolsters his summations with just enough research, statistical data and anecdotal evidence to make them plausible. The book takes readers to Madison Square Garden for an exegesis of professional wrestling; to the Adult Video News Expo in Las Vegas for lengthy interviews with porn actors and producers and an inflatable doll vendor; and to Claremont Graduate University in California for a seminar on positive psychology, which Hedges terms a “quack science” that “is to the corporate state what eugenics was for the Nazis.”

As a resident of Miami Beach, where the pornographic sensibility is a way of life, I wasn’t shocked to read that annual porn sales in the United States “are estimated at $10 billion or higher” or that DIRECTV distributes “more than 40 million streams of porn into American homes every month.” But I shuddered when Hedges documented not just a growing appetite for violent forms of porn in America but their remarkable visual similarity to photos of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. “Porn reflects the endemic cruelty of our society,” he writes. “The violence, cruelty, and degradation of porn are expressions of a society that has lost the capacity for empathy. … The Abu Ghraib images that were released, and the hundreds more disturbing images that remain classified, could be stills from porn films.”

Unfortunately, Empire of Illusion won’t enlighten or offend the large swaths of functionally illiterate Americans transfixed by smut, pro wrestling, reality TV or celebrity gossip, because those people won’t read the book. But this scholarly 193-page diatribe, which draws from a 100-author bibliography ranging from the late neo-Marxist Frankfurt School icon Theodor Adorno(The Culture Industry) to Princeton professor emeritus Sheldon Wolin (Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism), would surely madden many proud affiliates and alumni of America’s elite university system.

Hedges, who attended New England prep schools, Colgate and Harvard as a young man, and later taught at Princeton, Columbia and New York University, asserts in Chapter 3, “The Illusion of Wisdom,” that Harvard, Yale, Princeton and most elite schools “do only a mediocre job of teaching students to question and think.” Elite universities are in the business of producing “hordes of competent systems managers” not critical thinkers. Those statements strike me as generally accurate. But I’d expect some fierce academic blowback from this notion: “The elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent, and often subversive.” And Hedges suggests that these high-end schools “refuse to question a self-justifying system” in which “organization, technology, self-advancement, and information systems are the only things that matter.”

Hedges not only blames the elite universities for our mortgage-fueled financial crisis but is sure their alumni on Wall Street and in Washington have no capacity to really fix the economic system. “Indeed, they’ll make it worse,” he predicts, exchanging his reportorial register for the absolutist. “They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of how to replace a failed system with a new one.” (He includes George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Obama’s “degree-laden” cabinet members in this group.)

If Hedges knows how to fix the system, he doesn’t tell us inEmpire of Illusion. I hope that’ll be the subject of his next book, because in the meantime, “powerful corporate entities, fearful of losing their influence and wealth” are waiting for “a national crisis that will allow them, in the name of national security and moral renewal, to take complete control,” he warns, without citing verifiable evidence for his dire prediction.

What if PBS, Fox and YouTube organized a national debate featuring Chris Hedges, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, his predecessor Hank Paulson, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Christian Coalition president Roberta Combs and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? That panel is a little far-fetched, but it’s the sort of cross-ideological forum that Cass Sunsteinprescribes in Republic.com 2.0 as a way of preventing the nation from sliding into factional, perhaps even violent strife.

Sunstein is a law professor, author and perennial all-star in the world of public intellectuals; he took leave from Harvard Law School to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget. “The American constitutional order was designed to create a republic, as opposed to a monarch or direct democracy,” he writes. “Representatives would be accountable to the public at large. But there was also supposed to be a large degree of reflection and debate, both within the citizenry and within government itself.”

Of course, the Founding Fathers knew public debate could get ugly. Sunstein notes Alexander Hamilton’s belief that the “jarring of parties” was a good thing because it would engender deliberation and, over time, a “republic of reasons.”

Are we one today? Not as much as we could be, Sunstein thinks. His fundamental concern in Republic.com 2.0 is the Internet’s potential for impeding deliberation between groups with opposing viewpoints, eventually increasing ideological rigidity and polarization to a point of no return. It’s vastly easier to join like-minded Internet “enclaves” across the world than to drive across town for a meeting in which someone might challenge one’s pre-established beliefs and positions. Sunstein walks readers through behavioral studies finding that when groups of like-minded individuals are isolated from different viewpoints, they tend toward consensus on the most extreme position held within the group.

At worst, Sunstein says, Internet-induced polarization could lead to social instability. “The danger is that through the mechanisms of persuasive arguments, social comparisons, and corroboration, members will move to positions that lack merit,” he writes. “It is impossible to say, in the abstract, that those who sort themselves into enclaves will generally move in a direction that is desirable for society at large or even for its own members. It is easy to think of examples to the contrary, as, for example, Nazism, hate groups, terrorists, and cults of various sorts.”

Clearly, the Internet has potential to create political good. Citizens have access to vast amounts of information and commentary. Even like-minded enclave proliferation can be good: The more there are, the greater the potential for inter-enclave discussion.

But a study of 1,400 liberal and conservative blogs found the vast majority of bloggers link only to like-minded blogs. Worse, another study showed that when “liberal” bloggers comment on “conservative” blog posts, and vice-versa, a plurality of comments simply cast contempt on opposing views. “Only a quarter of cross-ideological posts involve genuine substantive discussion. In this way, real deliberation is often occurring within established points of view, but only infrequently across them,” Sunstein reports.

One cure for Internet-driven polarization lies with “general interest intermediaries.” By that terminology, Sunstein means media outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, current affairs magazines, PBS, NPR and old-fashioned network news broadcasts: “People who rely on such intermediaries have a range of chance encounters, involving shared experiences with diverse others, and also exposure to materials and topics that they did not seek out in advance.”

Of course, these are the media that are in decline because of the Internet. Sunstein imagines a greater role for private and public institutions, including the federal government, in ensuring enough general-interest intermediaries exist to make the republic’s communications system “a help rather than a hindrance to democratic self-government” and a counterbalance to the echo chambers of the Web.

For the most part, Thom Hartmann’s Threshold: Crisis of Western Civilization functions as a general-interest intermediary in book form. Still, readers can be forgiven for wondering, at times, whether they are in a no-conservatives zone. Hartmann is host of the Thom Hartmann Show, a nationally syndicated “progressive” radio talk show.

Just the same, Threshold is so geographically and temporally sprawling that it offers material even progressive readers might not have chosen in advance: a refugee camp in contemporary Darfur in southern Sudan (Lesson: Famine leads to war and more suffering.); ancient New Zealand, where the Maoris exterminated the moa birds, forcing them to become cannibals (Don’t repeat this mistake.); contemporary Denmark, where people happily send 30 to 60 percent of their income to the government in exchange for free health care, free university tuition, yearlong maternity leave, ample unemployment coverage and more (Americans should consider this.); Caral in ancient Peru, where anthropologists have found no evidence of weaponry (”Maybe peace is the natural state of things.”); the Iroquois people, who made certain decisions based on how they would affect tribe members seven generations hence. (If only the rest of us Americans would do that.)

In sum, Threshold is 262 pages of scientific and historical anecdote suggesting that unregulated markets, undemocratic behavior and unecological practices lead to catastrophe. If you haven’t already read a good overview of topsoil depletion, the marine fisheries crisis, rain forest destruction, the democratic behavior of red deer, the 1888 Supreme Court decision that defined corporations as “persons,” the $15 million that 30,000 corporate lobbyists spend weekly when Congress is in session, President Eisenhower’s premonition of a military-industrial complex with “unwarranted influence,” the 2004 computerized voting machines controversy, the $1 trillion in tax dollars the U.S. government spent on war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not on infrastructure and schools, and the subprime loan/toxic securities debacle — you can find one in Threshold. Hartmann’s common-sense remedies include “recovering a culture of democracy,” “balancing the power of men and women,” “reuniting with nature,” “creating an economy modeled on biology” and “influencing people by helping them rather than bombing them.” His book offers few specifics on how these ends might be accomplished in the real world.

So are we drifting along in a pre-fascist state? Has our democratic system really fallen under the control of corporate America? Hartmann’s take obviously starts and stays (far) to the left of center, and we’ll just have to stay tuned and see whether future events support the dire view he and Hedges have of America’s political direction. Meanwhile, I’ll be on the lookout for a persuasive book telling me how it isn’t exactly so, and why America can escape from the economic and ecological spectacle it has made itself.

Source: AlterNet

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Tea Party Purge — A Cause Without a Rebel

Is America Still a Nation of Laws?

Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?