Scratch A "Liberal," Find A Fascist: The Case Of Barbara Boxer

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); by William Norman Grigg

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a bottomless fountain of foolishness, has proposed a measure that would permit governors to deploy National Guard troops to provide "security" at government-run schools.

?Is it not part of the national defense to make sure that your children are safe?? Boxer asked during a Capitol Hill press conference in the misguided belief that this content-free trope somehow constituted compelling wisdom.

She blithely stated that her proposal wouldn?t be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (which was supposed to prevent the domestic use of the military for the purpose of law enforcement) because it would allow governors to re-purpose troops who are already being used for drug interdiction operations. That is to say, the militarization of schools wouldn?t constitute a new Posse Comitatus violation, but rather expand on an existing one.

Boxer?s proposal to militarize the schools could have been taken directly from "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,? a terrifyingly prescient essay published twenty years ago in Parameters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College by military historian Charles J. Dunlap. This glimpse of a dystopian future takes the form of a long letter written by an officer awaiting execution as a traitor to the junta that has seized control over the United States in the wake of military disasters abroad and socio-economic turmoil at home.

"It wasn't any single cause that led us to this point," writes the condemned patriot to a friend. "It was instead a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992.? Rather than de-mobilizing at the end of the Cold War, the ruling establishment expanded the military?s mission overseas and made it an even more pervasive presence at home.

Military personnel became "an adjunct to all police forces in the country," the officer recalls; social and economic problems were redefined as "national security" issues and brought under the military's area of responsibility. This is how uniformed military personnel became ubiquitous: People became accustomed to the sight of "uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.... Even the youngest citizens were co-opted.... [We have] an entire generation of young people who have grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel patrolling their streets and teaching in their classrooms."

There is a sense in which Boxer?s proposal is redundant, since armed ?warriors? are already deployed in countless schools nation-wide: They are called ?resource officers,? but they are taught to perceive themselves as front-line troops on a combat footing.

"You've got to be a one-man fighting force,? self-styled counter-terrorism ?expert? John Giduck exhorted police officers at the 2007 National Conference of School Resource Officers in Orlando, Florida. ?You've got to have enough guns, and ammunition and body armor to stay alive.... You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons.... You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself [sic] as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers." (Emphasis added.)

?Resource Officers? are not present for the protection of children; their mission is to intimidate them, and ? with increasing frequency ? make criminals out of them. A detailed story published by The Guardian of London points out that in 2010, police deployed in public schools issued roughly 300,000 ?class C misdemeanor? citations to school children, most of them for trivial disruptive behavior, such as ?inappropriate? dress and excessive use of perfume. Those infractions can result in fines, community service, or even time behind bars ? and an arrest record that can ruin the student?s future educational and employment prospects. This is a splendid illustration of the ?school-to-prison pipeline? in operation.

Although horrific mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School are vanishingly rare, ?lock-down? drills in which SWAT teams conduct training exercises involving hostage or terrorism scenarios are increasingly commonplace. Many of those ?hostage rescue" drills are better described as hostage-taking exercises, since they are used as pretexts for warrantless searches of lockers and student property.

Vista Grande High School in Casa Grande, Arizona, held a lock-down drug sweep on October 31. As had happened before in other schools across the country, the students were confined to their classrooms, then led in small groups to another room where they were forced to line up against a wall and be searched with the help of drug-sniffing dogs.

This exercise introduced a new element: Among the four law enforcement agencies involved in the search was a group of prison guards employed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation?s largest for-profit prison contractor.

Notes Caroline Isaacs of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee: ?To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the `schools-to-prison pipeline? I?ve ever seen.? Clearly, the similarities between government-run schools and prisons are not limited to architecture. Posting National Guard troops around government indoctrination centers, as Boxer proposes, would destroy any residual pretense that there is a material distinction between "schools" and "prisons" in what is becoming an undisguised garrison state.

Like most contemporary liberals, Boxer is a passionate militarist who swaddles her enthusiasm for lethal force in rhetoric about compassion and equality. She can call for armed troops to patrol ?gun-free? school zones without perceiving any contradiction, because she simply assumes that the rest of us exist only to serve the interests of the political class and its enforcement arm. It is their privilege to compel, and our duty to submit to whatever they choose to inflict upon us. This is what Boxer and her comrades have in mind when they invoke ?national security.?
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind of Violence
- Private Murders versus Government Murders
- Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control?
- Gun Control = Gun Violence
- The Spontaneous Order of the Dance Floor
- American Children and Foreign Children
- I Fear the Government and the Obedient Sheeple, More Than I Fear Guns
- If Obama Is Opposed To Guns, Why Did His Administration Just Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition?

She's a Bolshevik. She's part of the same ilk like Diane Feinstein who profited famously from the 'illegal wars'.

Boxer is an Israel-firster

Scratch the golden foil! Scratch scratch scratch A) The author of the title clearly has no idea what a liberal or a facist is, much less the difference.

B) I don't understand: I thought this was what all good NRA libertarians demanded. Wasn't armed guards in schools the whole solution? Given that regulating guns is bad?

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

The Liberal Way to Run the World - "Improve" or We'll Kill You

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by John Pilger

What is the world's most powerful and violent "ism"? The question will summon the usual demons such as Islamism, now that communism has left the stage. The answer, wrote Harold Pinter, is only "superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged", because only one ideology claims to be non-ideological, neither left nor right, the supreme way. This is liberalism.

In his 1859 essay On Liberty, to which modern liberals pay homage, John Stuart Mill described the power of empire. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians," he wrote, "provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end." The "barbarians" were large sections of humanity of whom "implicit obedience" was required. The French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville also believed in the bloody conquest of others as "a triumph of Christianity and civilisation" that was "clearly preordained in the sight of Providence".

"It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers," wrote the historian Hywel Williams in 2001, "but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its openended nature - its conviction that it represents a superior form of life [while denying its] selfrighteous fanaticism." He had in mind a speech by Tony Blair in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, in which Blair promised to "reorder this world around us" according to his "moral values". At least a million dead later - in Iraq alone - this tribune of liberalism is today employed by the tyranny in Kazakhstan for a fee of $13m.

Blair's crimes are not unusual. Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations - 69 countries - have suffered some or all of the following. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted and their people bombed. The historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. This has been principally the project of the liberal flame carrier, the United States, whose celebrated "progressive" president John F Kennedy, according to new research, authorised the bombing of Moscow during the Cuban crisis in 1962. "If we have to use force," said Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state in the liberal administration of Bill Clinton, "it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future." How succinctly she defines modern, violent liberalism.

Syria is an enduring project. This is a leaked joint US-UK intelligence file:

"In order to facilitate the action of liberative [sic] forces... a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals [and] to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria. CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main [sic] incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals... a necessary degree of fear... frontier and [staged] border clashes [will] provide a pretext for intervention... the CIA and SIS should use... capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension."

That was written in 1957, though it might have come from a recent report by the Royal United Services Institute, A Collision Course for Intervention, whose author says, with witty understatement: "It is highly likely that some western special forces and intelligence sources have been in Syria for a considerable time." And so a world war beckons in Syria and Iran.

Israel, the violent creation of the west, already occupies part of Syria. This is not news: Israelis take picnics to the Golan Heights and watch a civil war directed by western intelligence from Turkey and bankrolled and armed by the medievalists in Saudi Arabia. Having stolen most of Palestine, attacked Lebanon, starved the people of Gaza and built an illegal nuclear arsenal, Israel is exempt from the current disinformation campaign aimed at installing western clients in Damascus and Tehran.

On 21 July, the Guardian commentator Jonathan Freedland warned that "the west will not stay aloof for long... Both the US and Israel are also anxiously eyeing Syria's supply of chemical and nuclear weapons, now said to be unlocked and on the move, fearing Assad may choose to go down in a lethal blaze of glory." Said by whom? The usual "experts" and spooks.

Like them, Freedland desires "a revolution without the full-blown intervention required in Libya". According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. Read the Unicef report on the children killed, "most [of them] under the age of ten". Like the destruction of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, these crimes were not news, because news as disinformation is a fully integrated weapon of attack.

On 14 July, the Libyan Observatory for Human Rights, which opposed the Gaddafi regime, reported, "The human rights situation in Libya now is far worse than under Gaddafi." Ethnic cleansing is rife. According to Amnesty, the entire population of the town of Tawargha "are still barred from returning [while] their homes have been looted and burned down".

In Anglo-American scholarship, influential theorists known as "liberal realists" have long taught that liberal imperialists - a term they never use - are the world's peacebrokers and crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. They have taken the humanity out of the study of nations and congealed it with a jargon that serves warmongering power. Laying out whole nations for autopsy, they have identified "failed states" (nations difficult to exploit) and "rogue states" (nations resistant to western dominance). Whether or not the regime is a democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant. The same is true of those contracted to do the dirty work. In the Middle East, from Nasser's time to Syria today, western liberalism's collaborators have been Islamists, lately al-Qaeda, while longdiscredited notions of democracy and human rights serve as rhetorical cover for conquest, "as required". Plus ?a change.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Why Vote?
- Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone
- Liquid, Liquid Everywhere, But Not a Drop To Drink Free of Our Rulers' Stranglehold
- Eight Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately
- Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters
- Of Bidens and Bikers: Does Anybody Remember Derek Hale?
- Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality
- How I Live a Little Freer by Staying on the Move

Spoilt for choice as every Ism is a schism created through zionIsm aka world dominance/governance and a dance of necromance. Commune-Ism has only left the stage as it has infected the entire audience. Please stop using al-Qaeda and instead use CIA as much of the population recognises it to be so.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

The Topsy-Turvy Liberal View of Taxation

By Anthony Gregory, The Independent Institute

Obama insists that the United States can?t afford to maintain corporate tax cuts. As with all modern liberals, when he says the U.S. can?t afford it, he means the government can?t afford it without cutting spending. With nearly four trillion dollars of expenditures a year, I suppose it?s very understandable that the president, as most of his ideological ilk, view tax cuts -- signifying where the government is refraining from taking privately owned money in the first place -- as a reasonable ?cost? to ?society,? that ought to be phased out, long before the empire, police state, and trillions of dollars in domestic goodies are trimmed back more than a nominal amount.

It is not only liberals. Some conservatives also spread this myth that tax cuts are the same as subsidies -- an area of government spending, rather than an area where the government is seizing less than it potentially could -- as we saw a few months ago, when a dozen conservative lobbying groups signed on to a petition demanding the end of tax credits for certain energy interests. This is an unfortunate and retrogressive retreat from the early American conception of taxation, an ideal that animated a revolution over 330 years ago and that is ostensibly being celebrated this very weekend. Taxation, after all, is the government using force and the threat of force to exact revenue from the private sector. It is warmed over tribute, a practice embraced by the ruling classes going back at least to ancient Egypt. The American colonists resented tax rates that were miniscule by today?s standards. And at their best, they saw taxation as an instrument of tyranny, rather than something to ensure was never lifted because society could not ?afford? it.

Some will argue, validly, that corporate interests do in fact benefit from state intervention -- various monopoly privileges, direct subsidies, regulatory advantages, preferential treatment, government contracts, protections from common law liability, and so on and so forth. But then the answer should be to eliminate these advantages, not counter them with tax increases. Indeed, if Obama thinks corporations have it too easy, and also wants honestly to deal with the deficit problem, he should work to eliminate or prevent, now and in the future, the vast agricultural subsidies that distort the market and mostly end up in the hands of rich corporate farming interests, the cushy contracts doled out via the military-industrial complex, the enormous bailouts and moral hazard pervading the financial sector, the stimulus spending that goes to favored businesses, the energy subsidies, the auto bailouts, the grossly over-zealous federal enforcement of patents, and the hundreds of other ways that the federal government actively redistributes money from the poor and middle class to the politically connected rich. Some of the left would even join him in much of this endeavor.

But he has no interest in that, and neither do most mainstream liberals, or most conservatives for that matter, because cutting tax credits, rather than eliminating corporate benefits, expands the power of the state. Ridding of corporate welfare and privilege would mean scaling back state power and diminishing the ability of politicians to play favorites, secure campaign assistance, and attempt to centrally plan the economy.

Taxation is a process whereby the government actively confiscates wealth that it didn?t earn. Even most of the somewhat corrupt businesses that, in our mixed economy, do not make all their profits due solely to free market principles but with the help of state intervention, are paragons of moral virtue and economic efficiency compared to the state itself. The state?s taxing power and thus its budget should be scaled back as much as humanly possible, for every dollar it takes without any ethical claim to it, it uses to solidify its own power and, in most cases, spends inflicting mayhem on the economy and social order. The liberals of the early American era -- classical liberals, of the Jeffersonian sort -- recognized these basic truths, and in their more honest moments, opposed the taxing power as a matter of principle, and did so in defense of the common man. Today?s liberals have turned the great American tradition -- identifying taxation?s immorality and opposing the institution -- on its head, calling tax breaks an instance of government spending that ?we? cannot ?afford.? Don?t be fooled by this sleight of hand. Taxes are one of the major prices we pay to see government wreck civilization, and reductions, cuts, exemptions and credits, although often implemented for disingenuous reasons, are nevertheless islands of freedom in a sea of tyranny.

Latest Commentary
- The Private Fireworks Show Of My Dreams
- Independence Day Propaganda
- Innovations in Technology | Jeffrey A. Tucker
- Show Love to the Merchant Class
- Conspiracies
- Fireworks: Taxpayer Money, Up in Smoke
- The Grand Holiday
- The Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here