How The Left Was Won

---

LIFE / HOW THE LEFT WAS WON

---

Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.

And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned -- whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity -- and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don’t give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else’s exclusion. The strategy is simple, really -- promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.

How The Left Was Won

An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order

Overview

Combining a series of unique insights with an entirely new set of analytical techniques, How the Left Was Won systematically dismantles each and every element of modern-day liberalism ranging from the justifications behind all of its flawed social and political policies to the most basic assumptions regarding the ideology itself.

In order to achieve this goal, the author first introduces a new framework which segments and isolates all liberal behaviors and beliefs into the most objective and discrete elements possible. He then goes on to provide numerous examples of how liberals relentlessly employ this simple set of tools and methodologies over and over again and then discusses the resulting effects they have on our society. Some of these strategies include:

● Promote and Exploit Divisiveness: Learn why liberals should thank God every day for differences between people and how without them, liberalism would be dead in the water.

● Bad Competition: Learn why practically all liberal policies create success only through the impairment of others and exactly where this dynamic must necessarily lead.

● Relevancy and Proportion: See why the vast majority of what liberals say has absolutely no meaning whatsoever and learn a simple way to prove it every time.

● Implicit Assumptions: Explore the assumptions liberals use to shape public policy and see why the arguments supporting them are ultimately nothing more than a house of cards.

● Groupdividual: Find out how liberalism has distorted the differences between groups and individuals and why this continued distortion is the basis for all flawed social policies within the United States.

● The Perpetual Motion Machine: Learn how the vast majority of liberal programs are based on the scientific impossibility of getting something for nothing.

● A Swarm of Ants: Find out the real reason liberalism continues to permeate more and more elements of our society and why there just may be no way of stopping it.

Excerpt

The following is an excerpt from the opening pages of Chapter One of How The Left Was Won: An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order.

Let’s face it, when you get right down to it, all of liberalism is fueled by a singular strategy -- a strategy which has been continually perfected and relentlessly executed over the past forty years. That strategy is to promote and exploit divisiveness.

Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.

Class warfare, race baiting, name calling and man-hating -- all with a singular goal: to get themselves in power by promoting and exploiting divisiveness. Of course, once this divisiveness turns into frenzy, these same people suddenly act as if they actually want to solve a problem that didn’t even exist before they did everything they possibly could to create it.

To liberals, every issue, every situation is an opportunity to divide. History, religion, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the death of a soldier, a political debate, the hurricane which devastated New Orleans. Every tragedy exploited to divide. Every victory belittled to divide. Every incident, every word, every distorted statistic, every holiday -- you name it, they will find some way to divide it.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the politicians who promote and exploit divisiveness; it is the people as well. Malcontents, jealous of anyone with any sort of success, come up with any way they can to attack those who are more successful then they are. Someone is rich only because they stole something from them. Certain groups are more successful only because they took advantage of them. Work has nothing to do with it. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Planning ahead has nothing to do with it. Even luck has nothing to do with it.

And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned -- whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity -- and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don’t give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else’s exclusion. The strategy is simple, really -- promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.

Liberals should thank God every day for differences between people because without them, liberalism would be dead in the water. Without them, the country might have some stability. Without them, it might have a chance to survive. Without them, the problems between those who want and those who have might actually be manageable in some meaningful or productive way. But differences have given liberals the perfect opportunity to stop any rational discussion dead in its tracks. Differences have led to polarization. Differences have led to countries within a country. Differences have led to the dreaded xist-ism-monger-phobia. Differences have allowed liberals to add any of these four sounds to the end of any word they choose, virtually guaranteeing that they can get away with anything they want.

Worse yet, liberals actually have the nerve to turn around and endlessly accuse conservatives of divisiveness. To them, conservatives -- who believe everyone should be held to the same standards -- are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives -- who believe everyone should have the same rights regardless of the guises used to justify different ones for different people -- are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives -- who sacrifice their time, money, careers and often their lives to defend the true meaning of freedom and liberty -- are somehow divisive.

But the reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who are trying to make some contribution to our society. The reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who expect others to at least try to do the same. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something out of a society far beyond what they are willing to put back in. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something for nothing …

About The Author

Richard Mgrdechian is a Prometheus Award nominated social and political author and commentator. He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from the prestigious California Institute of Technology (Caltech), along with an MBA from Columbia University in New York. His prior careers have included positions as a NASA engineer, investment banker and high-tech CEO.

In addition to his books, Richard’s writings have appeared in several publications including Townhall.com, The Post Chronicle, The Prometheus Newsletter and others.

Richard has appeared on numerous talk-shows (including the nationally-syndicated Michael Reagan Show, Heads Up America, Ringside Politics, The Voice and others) to discuss the insightful and often controversial issues addressed in his books and was recently featured in David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine. To read that highly acclaimed interview, please click HERE.

Richard can be reached at: author@howtheleftwaswon.com

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Want Facism In Your Country?

---

LIFESTYLES / AMERICA: ON THE ROAD TO FACISM

---

It’s a tricky process to bring fascism to a nation with a tradition of individual rights, and its concomitant, self-motivation. If you live in a nation that combines initiative with orneriness, you may as well save your secret dream for your grandkids. A people who balk when the government tells them what to do, when that "what" is genuinely good for them, leaves little hope for the fascist. Better luck next century.

If the people around you are becoming complaisantly obedient, however, things are looking ripe. There’s no more tractable whipped dog than one who asks for regularity in the whipping schedule. If you hear your neighbors seriously wonder who’s going to tell them how to vote, then you’re laughing.

Want Fascism In Your Country?

Here’s Your Import Guide

~ By Daniel M. Ryan

Have you become convinced that the only way to improve the moral and/or physical status of your country is to get the State to whip everyone into line? Do the defenses of individual rights and individual freedoms leave you feeling both bored and resentful? Are you daring enough to contemplate a nation where no-one does anything except what he or she is told by government officials, and find it to your liking? Are you inclined to dismiss defenses of freedom as mere apologetics for license and/or anarchy?

If you got through the above series of questions with all "okay"s, then you may very well be a fascist. A fascist is someone who affirmatively believes what question three asks about. Given that the military is the only way to keep such a system together, it’s a short leap of practical logic to conclude that military dictatorship is the only way to keep the populace in line. There have been experiments in democratic fascism during most of the last century, but the historical record does indicate that there is something inherently contradictory between fascism and democracy. The State seems to run more smoothly, not to mention efficiently, when the people aren’t consulted in a substantive way. Show elections, of course, are an option, but the representatives have to have their wings clipped to keep them mere windbags. This last point is important to remember.

It’s a tricky process to bring fascism to a nation with a tradition of individual rights, and its concomitant, self-motivation. If you live in a nation that combines initiative with orneriness, you may as well save your secret dream for your grandkids. A people who balk when the government tells them what to do, when that "what" is genuinely good for them, leaves little hope for the fascist. Better luck next century.

If the people around you are becoming complaisantly obedient, however, things are looking ripe. There’s no more tractable whipped dog than one who asks for regularity in the whipping schedule. If you hear your neighbors seriously wonder who’s going to tell them how to vote, then you’re laughing.

What do you do once you’ve got the in-signal? Here, for your contemplation, is a quick guide on how to move your country’s government -- whups, "your country" -- to fascism:

1. Promote wholesale nationalization of industry while having no fallback plan for the resultant economic chaos that this spree will engender. This is the most reliable method to "go fascist." Because such nationalization leads to "planned chaos," it will quickly be discovered that the industries in question have to be de-nationalized pronto in order to keep the economy from collapsing. If you think that the economy’s collapse will be good for the moral fiber of the people, I’m afraid you’re reading the wrong sales pitch; you’ll have to wait for the one on socialism.

If you find it odd to bring fascism by promoting socialism, you evidently lack the cunning needed to be a successful political operative. Shame on you, and pay attention: by filling the heads of your fellow citizens with an impossible political dream that you yourself don’t believe in, you’ll shoot your competitors right down. Just make sure that you’re ready to plump for what you really believe in when the embarrassing backtrack is enacted.

Always remember: what makes socialism the most excellent running dog for fascism is not its end, but its means. People use even impossible ideals as guides to action; socialism, as a guide to action, entails hogtying every legitimate business that’s out there. What better way can you come up with to make the traditionally unruly business class grateful for the State’s leash? And the best part is: by letting the socialist do your sapping work for you, you can pose as being "pro-business" while it happens! You don’t even have to take off your white gloves!

Unfortunately, von Mises’ Socialism, despite its thoroughness and rigor, has acquired an unexpected popularity amongst the general public. Tragic this is, but the most sure-fire way to bring fascism to your State is unfortunately not do-able in our time. I’d better put this idea back on the table.

2. Promote "open-ended" guarantees of cold cash from the State to citizens. Believe it or not, this one works just as well as the first one; it just takes longer to work its magic. Open-ended commitments, like government-guaranteed health care, have a magnificent budget-busting potential. The bigger the mandated deficit spending, the better. Comprende, mi amigo?

Unfortunately, bills have to be paid, eventually. Eventually, the interest payments the government will have to make, to keep the guarantees a’flowing, will put a rather large crimp on the government’s budget. This is the point when the fascist option comes into its own. What better time to scoff at rationality when rationality implies "we have to pay for yesterday’s deficit-driven exuberance?"

More to the point: in order to keep the As We Go Marching fox-trot on a semi-even keel, impromptu financial fiddles will have to be relied upon. What better way to prepare the populace for the much simpler means of plunder-thy-neighbor for the remedy of budgetary embarrassments? Even better, any old-style conscientious citizen, who takes his or her civic duties seriously, is going to find it mind-numbingly confusing to figure out what got spent where, once these fiddles become normalized. This mind-numbing is almost as effective as the one that a citizen eager to abide by "the law," one who ends up plowing through the socialist-encouraged proliferation of regulations, has to endure in the regulatory state. And, as a bonus, such financial fiddles are just as unsupervised by the legislature as those proliferating regulations, if not more so! When you live in a country whose legislature is undercut to this degree, it’s only a short step to "Potemkin elections."

3. Passivity Is Your Noisy Friend. Unfortunately, many options that seem to be the magic solution have a notoriously vulnerable underbelly: they can be vitiated by citizens taking active steps to counteract them. A guarantee of health care forever loses its budget-wrecking potential if a bunch of yahoos decline the more expensive treatment and take their chances with the cheaper remedy. The trouble is, any such yahoo can justify taking this option through old-style patriotism, of the community-chest kind. Perhaps the same kind of yahoo can save for his or her retirement rather than depend upon the government’s retirement "fund." If the government pension plan is already in a crimp, said yahoo can squirrel money offshore and even justify it patriotically. There are, indeed, sneaky ways of being patriotic in this way: the fellow who’d rather starve on welfare than take a much more lucrative government grant is an underminer in his or her own way.

Yes indeed, this is the blind spot of all plans to bring fascism to your homeland. The general public may take matters into its own hands. This is why so many attempts to promote fascism through appeals to super-patriotism have fallen into ruin. Super-patriotism can also mean going out of one’s way to ease the burden on one’s fellow taxpayers, and upon one’s government. Taking this option leads to the cultivation of obstreperous habits, such as acting on one’s own recognizance.

Passivity works much better. In fact, it provably does. The kind of new Republic most vulnerable to fascism is one whose people have been freed by foreign conquest, rather than being freed through domestic exertions. The latter course of development means that the citizenry have already developed the habits of self-government. The former course means that they haven’t, and don’t quite know what they entail. It’s a useful fact that merely reading a diet book, no matter how rigorously, does nada for your weight. It’s an even more useful fact that reading "Get Active!" does nothing for your activity level. It won’t, until you get the gumption to make the inevitable mistakes that accompany getting active. You also need the necessary will-power to overcome the atrophy of your initiative, if the passive lifestyle has been for ye up to now. As long as the free will is lacking, "Get Active!" may as well mean "Do As I Tell You!"

4. Christian Peace Movements Are "Of The Devil." If fascism is your goal, remember this well. Any peace movement that goes out of its way to treat military personnel as if they were human beings too, is likely to result in reciprocal respect from the military. Mutual respect will result in an alarming number of veterans, and even of active-duty personnel, believing seriously that a state of peace is a better way to be than a state of war, even war for conquest and glory. Once the military is full of peace lovers, the fascist dream is dead, dead, dead. What good would it be to present promises of glory and conquest to a group of soldiers who have little use for either? Even if all the factors are in your favor, this one is the killer.

   Christian pacifists are most notorious for this kind of undermining, but don’t put it past the others.

There are many other details and tips that can be supplied, even by me, but these four are reliable enough to get you off to a good start.

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Lest you be accused of rank hypocrisy, you will have to cultivate the same passivity that’s your "in." Sorry.

November 7, 2006

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Daniel M. Ryan [send him mail] is a Canadian with a known aversion to theocracy, whether real or covert. He is currently burning his pretty pink thumb with pen and paper.

Daniel M. Ryan Archives

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Liberal Influence Distorts Media Journalism

---

MEDIA / UNDER THE INFLUENCE: LIBERALISM DISTORTS MEDIA JOURNALISM, REPORTING

---

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Under the Influence of Liberalism

~ Nathan Tabor
Friday 3 November 2006

I find it interesting that, in today’s maniacal media world, conservatives are taken to task for every syllable they utter, but liberals are given a pass.

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Sen. John Kerry is the latest case in point. Kerry indicated this week that if you’re a student who does not study hard and do your homework, you will end up “stuck in Iraq.” It should be evident to every American that this is an insult to the fine men and women who have put their lives on the line to try to rebuild Iraq and keep us safe from Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

But a number of journalistas are telling us that no, the Democrat from Massachusetts couldn’t possibly have meant what he said, given the fact that he himself is a veteran of war. No, we’re told, he just botched a joke. After all, Kerry is no David Letterman.

It seems to me that a more likely excuse is that he was speaking under the influence of liberalism.

I wonder where these apologists were when actor Mel Gibson, while drunk, blamed the Jewish people for the wars in the world. When the report of Gibson’s inebriated gaffe first emerged, television viewers were told that alcohol had enabled Gibson to reveal his true, disturbing feelings about people of Jewish descent. In other words, being drunk was no excuse. Gibson also apologized, but certain members of the media still wouldn’t let the matter rest. They suggested that his apology wasn’t good enough -- that he had to back up his words with concrete action.

What about Kerry? Is it enough for him to say he’s sorry? Or should he be made to take an active role in supporting the Iraq war effort -- something that I seriously doubt he would do. If Kerry isn’t required to make amends, doesn’t that mean that the media are engaging in a double-standard, lambasting conservatives for ill-chosen words, but quickly forgiving verbal mistakes from the liberal side of the political spectrum?

Yet another example from recent headlines is the Michael J. Fox-Rush Limbaugh fiasco. Rush said that Fox’s movements in a political ad indicated that he was either acting or off his meds for Parkinson’s disease. Fox said he was actually over-medicated; Rush admitted he was wrong. Yet, we see Rush’s imitation of Fox’s TV performance replayed on the tube over and over again. But Fox, whose liberal, pro-embryonic stem cell research stance is beloved by many major media, is not taken to task for the fact that he hasn’t even read the Missouri ballot issue he favors.

In the same vein, we see so many sympathetic media profiles of the Dixie Chicks in the aftermath of an unfortunate comment criticizing President George W. Bush. Those who refused to buy the group’s CDs in light of the incident are portrayed as backward and unforgiving, rather than as patriotic and proud of the Commander-in-Chief.

Free speech is, indeed, priceless. But when it is misused, the costs can be high for our democracy and our security. It’s one thing for a radio talk show host to spout off -- it’s quite another for a Senator to criticize our troops in wartime.

The media should at least hold Senator Kerry to as high a standard as they reserve for Gibson and Rush.

If you want a leader to lead following a moral code of ethics, that leader must have a sound foundation upon which he bases his personal morality. If they do not have a moral foundation, such as the bible, we should not be surprised at ANY immoral or unethical action they make. It is OUR responsibility to make sure our leaders, those who represent us, have a sound moral foundation. - Alain

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't,
and die to find out there is.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Election 2006: Choosing The Lesser Of Two Evils?

---

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS?

---

The 2006 election leaves voters in a "no-win" situation, no matter which of the two major political parties, Democrat or Republican, they chose to vote for.

While much of the following, biased, distorted, content regarding the Republican Party agenda is true, Democrats will harp on it to justify a Democrat vote in an attempt to advance their own anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative agendas. A vote for the Democrat Party is no alternative.

Such rhetoric only tends to create a smoke-screen to avoid addressing the real issues facing the American people, ignoring the evaluation of third-party choices by voters, where viable, qualified third-party candidates are available.

In essence, the two major political parties have become one, both advancing anti-American, anti-Constitutional agendas. The 2006 election thus leaves voters with a choice of either voting for Republican police-state Nazi Facism on the right, or Liberal Democrat, Communist, Marxist, Socialism on the left.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

America’s Slide to Totalitarianism

~ By Robert Parry
November 6, 2006

If the last-minute polling trends showing a powerful Republican comeback carry through the Nov. 7 elections, the end of America as we have known it for more than two centuries will be at hand.

In a political version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” the country might look the same -- people driving their SUVs to the mall or eating at fast-food restaurants -- but it will have internally changed. Election 2006 will have been the ratification of George W. Bush’s grim vision of endless war abroad and the end of a constitutional Republic at home.

Though not understanding the full import of their actions, the American voters will have endorsed the elimination of the “unalienable” rights handed down to them by the Founders, instead allowing “plenary” -- or unlimited -- power to be invested in the President. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will have been turned into irrelevant pieces of paper.

Bush will have the authority to send American young men and women to war wherever he chooses; he will have the power to spy on anyone he wants; he could imprison citizens and non-citizens alike under the Military Commissions Act while denying the detainees the right to file motions with civilian courts; he could order harsh interrogations which could then be used to convict defendants (assuming they are ever brought before one of his hand-picked tribunals for trial, conviction and execution); he could ignore or reinterpret any laws that he doesn’t like; he would have rubber-stamps in Congress and very soon in the U.S. Supreme Court; he and his potential successors would be, in effect, dictators.

While many Americans don’t want to believe that an American totalitarian state is possible, let alone an impending threat, Bush’s last-minute barnstorming, which has equated a Democratic congressional majority with a victory for terrorism, has put that dark reality within a day’s reach.

The American Right has thrown all its prodigious forces into the fray, particularly its powerful news media -- from talk radio and Fox News to the Internet and print publications -- making hay out of everything from John Kerry’s botched joke to the death sentence against Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, one reason this new America has the look of incipient totalitarianism is that the Right has created such a powerful media apparatus that it can virtually create its own reality. Most often, the cowed mainstream media tags along, as happened with the media frenzy over Kerry’s misinterpreted joke.

Assuming the Republican comeback trends continue through Election Day -- and the GOP holds both houses of Congress -- it will be hard to imagine how this right-wing juggernaut will ever be stopped. The only dissent that will be tolerated in the future is the ineffectual kind, the sort that doesn’t threaten the power structure.

Timid Protest

By the time, “respected” mainstream figures finally raise their hands in timid protest, it will be too late. An example of the tepid warnings from prominent insiders was the New York Times Op-Ed piece on Nov. 6 by former ABC news anchor Ted Koppel.

Koppel, who clambered aboard the Iraq War bandwagon in 2003, now sees some reason for concern in the way the Bush administration is waging the “war on terror” abroad by throttling liberties at home.

With mild alarm, Koppel noted that senior administration officials have framed the “war on terror” in “existential terms,” which means that they are claiming that the very existence of the United States is at risk. That, these officials argue, justifies extraordinary legal strategies for eliminating perceived enemies simply for associating with some suspect group.

“This practice falls into the category of what Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty calls ‘preventive prosecution,’” Koppel wrote. “It’s an interesting concept: a form of anticipatory justice. Faced with the possible convergence between terrorism and a weapon of mass destruction, the argument goes, the technicality of waiting for a crime to be committed before it can be punished must give way to pre-emption.”

Koppel described this “anticipatory justice” as “the somewhat jarring notion of recalibrating our constitutional protections.”

But Koppel then offers only the modest suggestion that “we should be building protective ramparts around our legal system, safeguarding our own freedoms, focusing on our own carefully constructed democracy and leading by example.” [NYT, Nov. 6, 2006]

To say that “respected” figures like Koppel don’t get the magnitude of the situation would be an understatement.

The Bush administration -- and the Republican-controlled Congress -- are driving the United States toward a new-age totalitarianism that can imprison people indefinitely without trial for what the government thinks they might do. Yet, instead of screaming from the rooftops, these cautious sages -- not willing to risk their standing in polite Washington society -- offer up only a few little safeguards as a reaction to these extraordinary developments.

If one combines the language of the Military Commissions Act with deputy attorney general McNulty’s vision of “preventive prosecution” -- and then add in the growing possibility of another Republican victory on Nov. 7 -- the United States is on the verge of being transformed into an Orwellian nightmare.

Election Stakes

But these stakes of this election are almost never explained.

The New York Times editorial page even continues to give the misleading impression that the Military Commissions Act only applies to non-citizens. The Times and other mainstream newspapers have yet to address the curious language deep inside the new law which would seem to throw U.S. citizens into the same draconian system with non-citizens.

While the Military Commissions Act does explicitly strip non-U.S. citizens of habeas corpus rights – the point that the Times has stayed focused on -- the law also contains vague wording about detaining “any person” who allegedly aids terrorists.

“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17.

“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.” [Emphases added]

The references to “any person” and specifically to those with “an allegiance or duty to the United States” would seem to apply to American citizens, placing them inside the military commissions and outside the reach of regular civilian courts.

Another provision of the law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”

That court-stripping provision -- barring “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” -- would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t assert any constitutional right, including habeas corpus.

Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights -- such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” -- appear to be beyond an American detainee’s reach as well.

The new tribunal law also applies to alleged spies, defined as “any person” who “collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States.”

Since the Bush administration and its political allies often have accused American journalists of conveying information to terrorists via stories citing confidential sources, it’s conceivable that this provision could apply to such articles, either for journalists or their sources.

It’s also likely that Bush would execute these powers during a serious terrorist incident inside the United States. Amid public anger and fear, Bush or some future President could begin rounding up citizens and non-citizens alike with little thought about a narrow interpretation of the law.

It could take years before the U.S. Supreme Court even addresses these detentions and -- given the increasingly right-wing make-up of the Court -- there would be no assurance that the justices wouldn’t endorse the President’s extraordinary powers.

Bush now knows he has four solid Supreme Court votes for his reinterpretation of the U.S. system of government -- John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. All Bush needs is one more vacancy among the five other justices to secure the court’s blessing for his all-powerful executive.

Padilla Case

Even without the new law, Bush has asserted his right to imprison American citizens indefinitely. In spring 2002, Bush ordered the military detention of American citizen Jose Padilla as an “enemy combatant.”

Administration officials deemed Padilla a “bad guy” who was contemplating a radioactive “dirty bomb” attack, though no such charges were ever filed and no evidence ever presented in court.

The point of the Padilla case was that Bush could assert his “plenary” powers to override habeas corpus rights of a fair trial and detain anyone he wanted indefinitely. Three-and-a-half years later -- facing likely reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush turned Padilla over to the civilian courts to face unrelated charges of supporting a terrorist group.

But Bush never renounced his right to imprison American citizens simply on a presidential say-so.

Add in the Bush administration’s concept of “preventive prosecutions” based on predictions of a person’s behavior and the United States is rapidly approaching a futuristic totalitarianism, which will seek to silence and imprison anyone who is deemed a boon to terrorists.

While the U.S. news media again has failed to alert the American people of these stakes -- much as it failed to question the administration’s case for war in Iraq in 2002-03 -- President Bush keeps hitting the “war on terror” hot buttons of fear.

Bush’s stump speeches, which present the Democrats essentially as nutty cowards, are driving his supporters into frenzies and stampeding Middle Americans back toward the perceived protection of Bush, the strongman.

Fresh Doubts

Ironically, however, the growing likelihood of a Republican victory giving Bush another blank check is coinciding with statements by more and more national security experts questioning Bush’s “war on terror” strategies.

For instance, Tyler Drumheller, former chief of CIA clandestine operations in Europe, wrote in a new book, On the Brink, that the Bush administration has resorted to scare tactics with the American public rather than addressing the terror issue responsibly.

“We have to be vigilant and keep track in communities where suicide bombers may be waiting to pounce,” Drumheller wrote. “But at the same time we have to be honest and accept that sometimes we cannot prevent such attacks from happening, instead of pretending that we can wipe terrorism out completely.

“September 11 was a freak attack, a perfect storm. The chances of another attack on the scale of 9/11 happening are extremely slim. The bloodshed should have prompted an honest review of how we run our foreign policy and law enforcement.

“Instead of taking a long, sober look at those issues, the Bush administration put the country in a state of prolonged panic.”

On the eve of Election 2006, Bush is exploiting that “prolonged panic” again, but the stakes are rising. On one level, Bush is seeking to consolidate one-party rule in Washington; on another, he is stripping the American people of the rights that have defined the nation for more than two centuries.

Whether the American people will understand what they’re doing or not, the Nov. 7 elections will either ratify or reject Bush’s plan for terminating the American Republic.

If you want a leader to lead following a moral code of ethics, that leader must have a sound foundation upon which he bases his personal morality. If they do not have a moral foundation, such as the bible, we should not be surprised at ANY immoral or unethical action they make. It is OUR responsibility to make sure our leaders, those who represent us, have a sound moral foundation. - Alain

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't,
and die to find out there is.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Election 2006: ''D'' Stands For Disaster

---

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: "D" STANDS FOR DISASTER

---

As a recovering liberal, I recall being a slave to the mantra of the left when it came to voting decisions. Although it is painful to admit it, the truth is that I used to automatically punch a hole next to the candidate with a D next to his or her name.

Voting Tip For Tuesday: "D" Stands For Disaster

~ John W. Lillpop
Friday 3 November 2006

As a recovering liberal, I recall being a slave to the mantra of the left when it came to voting decisions. Although it is painful to admit it, the truth is that I used to automatically punch a hole next to the candidate with a D next to his or her name.

That was it. My civic responsibility had been fulfilled for another two years.

With the exception of paying property, state, local, and federal income taxes that is. And the oddest coincidence changed my voting habits forever: My taxes got higher and higher in direct proportion to the number of Ds I voted for!

Eventually, I achieved a more sophisticated understanding of the D effect. I now realize that:

Ds are a disaster on national defense and homeland security.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to supporting the uniformed men and women who fight for freedom and democracy.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to defending the unborn.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to border security and illegal immigration.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to Supreme Court nominations and other judges.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to tax policies.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to education.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to overall economic policy.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to traditional moral values.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to law and order.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to affirmative action and other PC issues.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to freeing America from dependence on foreign oil.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to the size of government.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to taxing and regulating private U.S. enterprise.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to America’s heritage of religious faith.

Ds are a disaster when to comes to tort reform.

Ds are a disaster when it comes to defending the U.S. Constitution

All in all, astute voters should heed the following advice when thinking about voting for a Democrat: Don’t!

John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal, ’clean and sober’ since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are considered reasonable!

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Industry Giants Ply Congress In Entertaiment Industry

---

ENTERTAINMENT / INDUSTRY GIANTS PLYING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITH SATCHELS OF CASH SUPERCEDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

---

Law makers in Washington DC face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm.

On the outside are the American people. Across the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with Hollywood’s assault on their values, using the public airwaves they own. On the inside are the lobbyists for the entertainment industry giants, plying members of Congress with satchels of campaign cash, and demanding only … inaction. Which has a greater effect in politics today?

Nobody Runs Against Hollywood

~ By L. Brent Bozell III
November 2, 2006

Looking back at the fall campaign, it’s yet another cycle in which the Republican political brain trust sidestepped the issue of America’s growing concern for indecency oozing out of almost every perfumed pore of Hollywood. This time it may have been the fatal mistake.

The number one issue of importance coming out of the ’04 elections was “moral values,” thus presenting the GOP with the opportunity to pounce on the indecency issue during the ’06 campaign. I visited with one Republican incumbent running for re-election and suggested that this would be an ideal theme for his campaign. He responded that in all his years in the Senate he’d never received as much constituency mail as what landed in his mail box, his email and his voice mail following the Janet Jackson Super Bowl striptease. But he also left me with the clear impression, validated later by his campaign performance, that he’d do nothing on this front.

Republican strategists pull muscles just thinking about Dan Quayle scorning the “Murphy Brown” single-mom plot in 1992.

Here and there was an exception. In TV ads in Pennsylvania, family-values stalwart Sen. Rick Santorum told voters “I'm even working with Hillary Clinton to limit inappropriate material in children’s video games, because it makes more sense to wrestle with America's problems than with each other.” I’m sure a few other candidates had throw-away lines in their stump speeches. But there was nothing of substance, nothing serious coming out of this crowd.

And it was a lost opportunity in another way. The biggest rap against the GOP from its conservative base has been its do-nothing approach to governance, yet on the issue of decency the Republicans could point to a smashing legislative accomplishment. Still, no one could seem to locate the fact that on June 15, President Bush signed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which act increased tenfold the potential of FCC fines to those who continue to violate the public trust by pouring garbage on the public airwaves. The House version of the bill passed in June by a 379-35 margin, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent -- no roll call vote. It was a smashing success, exactly in line with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans.

So why the campaign silence? Maybe it’s because, as with so many other “values” issues, the Republican leadership was never enthusiastic. It’s important to note that it took the Republicans in the Senate two and a half years after the Janet Jackson breast-baring to pass their version of the bill -- and they did so only after massive constituency pressure.

And there’s the rub. The problem is that law makers in Washington DC face two constituencies with wildly differing levels of enthusiasm.

On the outside are the American people. Across the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with Hollywood’s assault on their values, using the public airwaves they own. On the inside are the lobbyists for the entertainment industry giants, plying members of Congress with satchels of campaign cash, and demanding only … inaction. Which has a greater effect in politics today?

Take the idea of cable choice, which would allow viewers to choose their cable channels a la carte and, more importantly, not have to pay for networks they don’t watch or, more emphatically, find personally offensive. It’s a slam-duck idea, one conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike, could endorse.

In June, Sen. John McCain offered an amendment to a Senate telecommunications bill that would have offered regulatory incentives to cable operators to offer cable choice to their subscribers. But it was defeated in committee by a vote of 20 to 2. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats alike -- they all fled. Only Sen. Olympia Snowe joined McCain in support.

One big reason? Common Cause reports that between 1991 and 2006, major cable industry interests and their trade groups spent more than $105 million on campaign contributions to federal candidates and on lobbying in Washington. Since 2003, major cable companies have ramped up “government affairs” spending and donating to keep Congress and regulatory agencies from asking tough questions about cable mergers, cable price increases, and to suffocate cable choice in the crib.

Will a strengthened Democratic presence in Washington prove to be any different in the indecency debate? In the Senate particularly there are members of that party -- Joe Lieberman, Jay Rockefeller, Byron Dorgan, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lambert Lincoln and Clinton come to mind -- with proven records. A move in this direction could bring waves of conservative Democrats, once-disaffected with their party, and now disdainful of their adopted GOP, back into the fold. But would these Democratic leaders be willing to buck the lobbyists as well as their Hollywood benefactors? What of the Republicans? Will time in the wilderness allow them to rediscover their roots? It’s a wide open question, with a wide open field, and a continuing political opportunity. Time will tell who grabs it.

Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Founded in 1987, the MRC is a 501 (c)(3) non profit research and education foundation.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---