The US is fast approaching its VETERANS' DAY------you know, all those US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE and new to US immigrants wanting to FIGHT AND DIE for our US FREEDOMS, LIBERTY, AND PURSUITS OF HAPPINESS----THOSE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN. What we have in Congress are the opposite. We have those global banking 5% freemason/Greeks having to MYTH-MAKE their military past in order to appear HEROES. What is a HERO to any sovereign nation? Someone with TRUTH AND VALOR giving one's best for the 99% of men, women, children at home protecting them from MOVING FORWARD.
We are forced to watch as the worst of US citizens are given acclaim for being those military HEROES while our REAL US 99% of WE THE VETERANS are being exposed to the worst of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD nihilism.
WHEN THE US NATIONAL MEDIA PLACE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF A BILL/LAW INTO MAINSTREAM MEDIA-------PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE FOR THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS HIDDEN IN THE DETAILS. THE TWO POLICIES MAKING ALL THE NEWS TIED TO NDAA----ONLY THE TIP OF ICEBERG.
So, is McCain an AMERICAN hero while working for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY OF MALTA, KNIGHTS OF MALTA having goals of sacking and looting America and taking it to colonial status?
H.R.5515 - John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019115th Congress (2017-2018) |
Get alerts Law
Sponsor: Rep. Thornberry, Mac [R-TX-13] (Introduced 04/13/2018)(by request)
Committees: House - Armed Services Committee Reports:
H. Rept. 115-676; H. Rept. 115-676,Part 2; H. Rept. 115-863 (Conference Report); H. Rept. 115-874 (Conference Report)
Latest Action: 08/13/2018 Became Public Law No: 115-232. (All Actions) Roll Call Votes: There have been 29 roll call votes Notes: See H. Rept. 115-874 for the latest conference report.
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
(a) In general.—This Act may be cited as the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019”.
(b) References.—Any reference in this or any other Act to the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019” shall be deemed to be a reference to the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019”.
SEC. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
(a) Divisions.—This Act is organized into four divisions as follows:
(1) Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations.
(2) Division B—Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(4) Division D—Funding Tables.
(b) Table of contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees.
Sec. 4. Budgetary effects of this Act.
The SIZE of these public policy bills simply shows how government has indeed become TOO LARGE-----but, it is not our left wing social progressive programs and platform making government to large---it is being controlled by global corporations tied to overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global corporate tribunals.
'Although the case applied only to the states, Munn undermined the sanctity of private property rights by establishing the precedent that property “clothed with a public interest” (i.e., any property related to business) is subject to government regulation and control.
As a result, Munn helped pave the way for the two major assertions of federal control over the economy—the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act--that would come in the Gilded Age'.
As REAL left social progressive left Democrats who for these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA had to listen to all that FAKE myth-making from far-right wing about how FDR's NEW DEAL and LBJ's WAR ON POVERTY was BIG GOVERNMENT gone bad---all those pesky regulations on corporations killing FREE MARKET------we were called BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY-----while of course it was the far-right wing global banking 1% creating the SUPER-DUPER BIG GOVERNMENT in MOVING FORWARD these few decades and NONE of the policies are tied to protecting our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE freedom, liberty, justice.
WHO SHOUTS LOUDEST AGAINST BIG GOVERNMENT-----THE RIGHT WING. WHO BUILT THE SUPER-DUPER BIG GOVERNMENT -----THE FAR-RIGHT WING.
US Congressional bills like this NDAA and AFFORDABLE CARE ACT are so big because they are written for GLOBAL CORPORATIONS--- not US sovereign small, regional, and national corporations and certainly not having any tie to CITIZENS' RIGHTS.
Image: Architect of the Capitol
The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
Michael Dahlen January 28, 2014 AMERICAN THINKER
PDF In The Objective Standard, Fall 2009
Nineteenth-century America was the closest thing to capitalism—a system in which government is limited to protecting individual rights—that has ever existed. There was no welfare state, no central bank, no fiat money, no deficit spending to speak of, no income tax for most of the century, and no federal regulatory agencies or antitrust laws until the end of the century. Consequently, total (federal, state, and local) government spending averaged a mere 3.26 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).1 The Constitution’s protection of individual rights and limitation on the power of government gave rise to an economy in which individuals were free to pursue their own interests, to start new businesses, and to create as much wealth as their ability and ambition allowed.
This near laissez-faire politico-economic system led to the freest, most innovative, and wealthiest nation in history.
OH, REALLY???? NO US FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS TIED TO RULE OF LAW, MONOPOLY, STRUCTURES LIMITING EXTREME WEALTH IN 1800S? WHY DID PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS KEEP PASSING TEMPORARY LAWS TO ALLOW ROBBER BARON PERIODS?
REMEMBER, OUR US CONSTITUTION HAS WRITTEN CLAUSE TYING IT TO BRITISH COMMON LAW
HeinOnline -- 84 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 909 2002
The Anti-Monopoly Origins of the Patent and Copyright Clause!
Tyler T. Ochoa and Mark Rose
The British experience with patents and copyrights prior to 1787
is instructive as to the context within which the Framers drafted
the Patent and Copyright Clause.
The 1624 Statute of Monopolies, intended to curb royal abuse
of monopoly privileges, restricted patents for new inventions
to a specified term of years.
The Stationers' Company, a Crown-chartered guild of London
booksellers, continued to hold a monopoly on publishing,
and to enforce censorship laws, until 1695. During this time,
individual titles were treated as perpetual properties held
by booksellers. In 1710, however, the Statute of Anne broke
up these monopolies by imposing strict term limits on copyright,
and in the 1730s Parliament twice rejected booksellers' attempts to preserve their monopolies by extending the copyright term.
Failing to achieve their ends through legislation, the booksellers sought to circumvent Parliament by arguing
that the Statute of Anne was only supplementary to an
underlying common-law right that was perpetual; but this
effort, too, was rebuffed when the House of Lords
determined in 1774 that the only basis for copyright was
the Statute of Anne.
In America, too, anti-monopoly sentiment was strong; and
when the Constitution was being drafted, the Framers,
influenced by the British experience, specified that patents
and copyrights could only be granted "for limited Times."
The Patent and Copyright Acts of 1790 copied the limited
terms of protection provided by the Statute of Monopolies
Since the beginning of the 20th century, however, capitalism and freedom have been undermined by an explosion in the size and power of government: Total government spending has increased from 6.61 percent of GDP in 1907 to a projected 45.19 percent of GDP in 2009;2 the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value due to the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies; top marginal income tax rates have been as high as 94 percent; entitlement programs now constitute more than half of the federal budget; and businesses are hampered and hog-tied by more than eighty thousand pages of regulations in the Federal Register.
What happened? How did America shift from a predominantly free-market economy to a heavily regulated mixed economy; from capitalism to welfare state; from limited government to big government? This article will survey the progression of laws, acts, programs, and interventions that brought America to its present state—and show their economic impact. Let us begin our survey by taking a closer look at the state of the country in the 19th century.
America’s Former Free Market
The Constitution established the political framework necessary for a free market. It provided for the protection of private property (the Fifth Amendment) including intellectual property (Article I, Section 8), the enforcement of private contracts (Article 1, Section 10), and the establishment of sound (gold or silver)3 money (Article I, Sections 8 and 10). It prohibited the states from erecting trade barriers (Article I, Section 9), thereby establishing the whole nation as one large free-trade zone. It permitted direct taxes such as the income tax only if apportioned among the states on the basis of population (Article 1, Sections 2 and 9), which made them very difficult to levy.4 Finally, it specifically enumerated and therefore limited Congress’s powers (Article I, Section 8), severely constraining the government’s power to intervene in the marketplace.
Federal regulatory agencies dictating how goods could be produced and traded did not exist. Rather than being forced to accept the questionable judgments of agencies such as the FDA, FTC, and USDA, participants in the marketplace were governed by the free-market principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). As historian Larry Schweikart points out:
KNOW WHAT? THE US CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN AT A TIME OF 13 EAST COAST COLONIES---IT DID NOT NEED ALL THESE FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
merchants stood ready to provide customers with as much information as they desired. . . . In contrast to the modern view of consumers as incompetent to judge the quality or safety of a product, caveat emptor treated consumers with respect, assuming that a person could spot shoddy workmanship. Along with caveat emptor went clear laws permitting suits for damage incurred by flawed goods.5
To be sure, 19th-century America was not a fully free market. Besides the temporary suspension of the gold standard and the income tax levied during the Civil War, the major exceptions to the free market in the 19th century were tariffs, national banking, and subsidies for “internal improvements” such as canals and railroads. These exceptions, however, were limited in scope and were accompanied by considerable debate about whether they should exist at all. Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln supported such interventions; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and John Tyler generally opposed them. These interventions (except for tariffs) were, as Jefferson, Jackson, and Tyler pointed out, unconstitutional. But history shows that they were also impractical. Tariffs were initially implemented, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1789, as a source of revenue—the main source in the 19th century—for the federal government. Pressure from northern manufacturers, however, to implement tariffs for purposes of protection led to the “Tariff of Abominations” (1828), which was scaled back by 1833 due to heavy opposition from the South. Tariff rates then remained relatively low—about 15 percent—until the Civil War. By 1864, average tariff rates had risen to 47.09 percent for protectionist reasons and remained elevated for the remainder of the century.6
As to national banking, the Second Bank of the United States’ charter expired in 1836, thereby paving the way for the free banking era—which lasted until a national bank was reinstituted during the Civil War. By virtually every measure of bank health, this free banking era was the soundest in American history. In terms of capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, profitability, and prudent management, national banking proved to be inferior to free banking.7
As to subsidies for internal improvements, although private entrepreneurs financed and built most roads and many canals,8 state governments intervened in the 1820s to subsidize canal building—amending their constitutions to do so.9 However, most state-funded canals either went unfinished, generated little to no income, or went bankrupt. As a result, by 1860 most state constitutions were amended again to prohibit such subsidies.10 After the Civil War, federal subsidies for the transcontinental railroads caused similar problems—as well as corruption. Further, they were proven to be a hindrance to rather than a precondition of a thriving railroad industry: James Jerome Hill’s Great Northern was the most successful of the transcontinental railroads, yet was built without any subsidies or land grants.11
The foregoing interventions, though impractical, were motivated in part by a desire to help promote the development of business and industry. But lurking in the periphery, growing in popularity, and poised to fuel further government interference in the marketplace, was the ideology of collectivism—the notion that the individual must be subordinated to the collective or the “common good.” This idea was stated by economist Daniel Raymond in his 1820 textbook: “it is the duty of every citizen to forgo his own private advantage for the public good.”12 And as the 19th century progressed, this idea was increasingly cited as a justification for government intervention. One of the most important instances of this was the Supreme Court’s decision in Munn v. Illinois (1876). In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Morrison Waite declared:
Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence. . . . When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good. . . .13
Although the case applied only to the states, Munn undermined the sanctity of private property rights by establishing the precedent that property “clothed with a public interest” (i.e., any property related to business) is subject to government regulation and control. As a result, Munn helped pave the way for the two major assertions of federal control over the economy—the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act—that would come in the Gilded Age.14 . . .
We KNOW MOVING FORWARD has taken the US from a global banking 1% corporate FASCIST REAGAN allowed to use our US military in ways having always been ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL------our academics, journalists, and media wrote over and over and over that these few decades ignored all US Constitutional and Federal laws surrounding military intervention overseas-----
Below we remind our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown what Federal agencies now fall under the umbrella of US DEFENSE DEPARTMENT------thinking how does a STRONG, CIVILIAN DEMOCRACY become one massive MILITARY COMPLEX?
Well, it MOVED FORWARD from EISENHOWER AVIATION ACT and went full speed after REAGAN.
THE SOLUTION IN STOPPING MOVING FORWARD IS REVERSING THIS-----THESE ARE THE GORILLA-IN-ROOM ISSUES FOR ALL US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
We are not only outing a MCCAIN in this global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS military mess-----but when our US 99% allow people having decades of service undermining our own national sovereignty and rights ------WHERE IS ANTIFA?
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Hearings and Markups
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies
Financial Services and General Government
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Defense Subcommittee Members
Kay Granger, Texas, Chairwoman
Hal Rogers, Kentucky
Ken Calvert, California, Vice Chair
Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Steve Womack, Arkansas
Robert Aderholt, Alabama
John Carter, Texas
Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida
Tom Graves, Georgia
Martha Roby, Alabama
Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana, Ranking Member
Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Tim Ryan, Ohio
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Henry Cuellar, Texas
TIME-HONORED VIRTUES during these few decades of lying, cheating, stealing, no morals or ethics, no US Rule of Law, and certainly no GOD'S NATURAL LAW------that sounds like THE NOISE OF TIME.
OH, REALLY???? During the era of masking TRUTH under fear of TRUTH-TELLING????
'Mark Salter: John McCain spent his life serving the dignity of his fellow man'
John McCain embodied time-honored virtues
Opinion | The legacy of John McCain: Duty above politics
Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt reflects on the life and legacy of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
(Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)
By Jennifer Rubin
Never have we needed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) more. He died Saturday after a heroic battle with brain cancer, which he bore without self-pity.
He embodied time-honored virtues — courage, loyalty, patriotism, honor. His unimaginable resolve and bravery as a POW in North Vietnam freed him in a sense to fear nothing in the realm of politics — not losing, not unpopularity, not venom from his critics.
As a result, he made every other politician look small and craven. Voting out of expediency or to gain partisan advantage? What a waste, what a foolish thing to do after you’ve endured unremitting agony for your refusal to capitulate to captors.
Not hobbled by partisan toadyism, he was able to stake out important and lonely ground on human rights, on climate change, on campaign finance, on immigration reform, on establishing relations with Vietnam, on rejecting unqualified nominees and on the miserable president we must now endure. One could differ strongly with him on the merits of these and other issues but never cease to marvel at his defiance of petty political hacks.
He hated the right people — bullies, tyrants, party hacks — and loved the right people — U.S. servicemen, dissidents and our stalwart democratic allies (because they are democratic).
He made plenty of mistakes — doozies. There was the savings and loan fiasco, the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 and his conviction there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When he erred however no one was more dogged in course correction. The S&L scandal begat finance reform; the WMD debacle begat heroic support for the surge which turned the tide in a war that was losing political support (thereby allowing Iraq to muddle through to the present).
He was a patriot but not a nationalist. His devotion was to the ideals of America, to the greatest of America that was possible from time to time. He passionately believed America was a land of immigrants who could be as American as the native born and without whom American greatness would be impossible.
Along with his family, or rather because they were family, military men, veterans and their families were his primary concern and the recipients of his unyielding love. Whether reform of Veterans Affairs or strengthening the armed forces he remained their truest friend and defender.
There was not in my lifetime a character in politics whom I admired more than McCain. His self-effacing humor, his intolerance of partisan nonsense, his courage and his puckish delight in infuriating hacks made him a unique figure in the Senate and in the country as a whole. If people wanted to know why I was a Republican (before I left the party) I told them, “I’m a John McCain Republican.” There is no such thing any more with the passing of McCain and the descent of the GOP into right-wing populism.
To say the Senate will be diminished without his presence is like saying a car is diminished by lack of an engine.
We live in a time of moral dolts and intellectual frauds but also in the America that McCain so loved and strived to improve. We can grieve his absence and bemoan our loss of leadership but ultimately to honor him we must defend our magnificent democracy, insist on its goodness and guarantee it remains the planet’s last, best hope.
We are reading this week one of those last century global banking 1% freemason LITERARY STARS----CHEKOV-----in a collection of his works dealing mostly with INSANITY, MENTAL ILLNESS, and FEAR written just as RUSSIA was being taken to USSR in MOVING FORWARD WW1-2-------where far-right wing authoritarian, militaristic corporate FASCISM started jailing those 99% of citizens having talent, intelligence, genius, leaning towards THE REAL LEFT----in trade unions, universities----media-----
Last week we discussed how STALINIST/HITLER fascism was wrapped in fear of TRUTH-TELLING-----we have shouted throughout OBAMA era that what was called AFFORDABLE CARE ACT tied to expanding HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE----had a great deal of MENTAL HEALTH funding with lots of structures having goals of IDENTIFYING MENTAL HEALTH problems----and having that HEALTH SYSTEM CODE written by global health systems from which our local communities cannot VARY/CHANGE.
Below we see what was the hint by global banking 1% in creating FADS------with CHEKHOV delving deep into human behavior especially as regards people living seemingly normal lives all of a sudden being diagnosed as MADMEN----imprisoned for life in institutions ----
WHO ARE THE MADMEN SAY WARD NO 6 TENET?
This is very much like our modern ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST----where those inside asylums are released and are hard to identify from ordinary 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
This is the legacy of a John McCain et al tied to US Department of Defense under control of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS MOVING FORWARD civil unrest civil war WW3 inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Ward No. 6 and Other Stories, 1892-1895
By Anton Chekhov
Introduction by J. Douglas Clayton
Translated by Ronald Wilks
Category: Fiction Classics | Literary Fiction
- Aug 27, 2002 | 368 Pages
About Ward No. 6 and Other Stories, 1892-1895
Tales of madness, alienation, and insight from a master of the short story
Ward No. 6 and Other Stories 1892-1895 collects stories which show Anton Chekhov beginning to confront complex, ambiguous and often extreme emotions in his short fiction. These stories from the middle period of Chekhov’s career include – influenced by his own experiences as a doctor – ‘Ward No. 6’, a savage indictment of the medical profession set in a mental hospital; ‘The Black Monk’, portraying an academic who has strange hallucinations, explores ideas of genius and insanity; ‘Murder’, in which religious fervour leads to violence; while in ‘The Student’, Chekhov’s favourite story, a young man recounts a tale from the gospels and undergoes a spiritual epiphany. In all the stories collected here, Chekhov’s characters face madness, alienation and frustration before they experience brief, ephemeral moments of insight, often earned at great cost, where they confront the reality of their existence.
This is the second in three chronological volumes of Chekhov’s short stories in Penguin Classics. Ronald Wilks’s lucid translation is accompanied by an introduction discussing the increasingly experimental style of Chekhov’s writing during this time. This edition also contains an annotated bibliography, chronology and explanatory notes.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.
This is the legacy of a John McCain et al tied to US Department of Defense under control of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS MOVING FORWARD civil unrest civil war WW3 inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS love using mental health as reasons to silence political dissent.
"Politically defined madness"
---hmmmm, that would be AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
How the Soviets used their own twisted version of psychiatry to suppress political dissent
9/04/12 10:00amFiled to: secret history
Over the course of its 69-year history, the Soviet Union was notorious for its heavy-handed suppression of political dissent — most infamously through its use of the Siberian GULAGs. But it was during the 1960s and 1970s that the Communist Party took their intolerance for ideological deviance to extremes by diagnosing and institutionalizing so-called counterrevolutionaries with mental illness. It was a frightening episode in Soviet history in which perfectly healthy citizens could be deemed psychotic simply on account of their political views.
And indeed, what better way to deal with activists and naysayers than to diagnose them as being mentally unstable. Dissenters, who were often seen as both a burden and a threat to the system, could be easily discredited and detained.
Moreover, it served as a powerful and disturbing way to convince the masses that they needed to adhere to the party line — and that any deviant thinking was surely a sign of mental instability. As Nikita Khrushchev noted in 1959, it should be impossible for people in a communist society to have an anti-communist consciousness, and "Of those who might start calling for opposition to Communism on this basis, we can say that clearly their mental state is not normal."
Consequently, it was around this time that Soviet definitions of mental disease were expanded to include political disobedience. But in the end, all it ever amounted to was a form of political abuse and repression. Anti-Soviet activists were not mentally ill — but instead the victims of politically inspired pseudoscience and the misuse of psychiatric diagnosis.
"Politically defined madness"
The advent of Soviet psychoprisons coincided with the rise in power and influence of the KGB, the infamous secret service wing of the Communist Party. They started to take an interest in medicine as a potential instrument of control as early as 1948 under the Stalin regime. The use of GULAGs was starting to fall out of favor, so it was around this time that the high-ranking KGB officer Andrey Vyshinsky ordered the use of psychiatry as a way to both quash dissent and still send a message to any would-be activists.
Indeed, psychiatry had great potential as a control mechanism — more so than other areas of medicine. The Communist Party was eager to take advantage. They knew that a diagnosis of mental illness could confer them broad powers by allowing them to detain persons against their will conduct therapy — all while proclaiming it to be within the interest of the "patient" and the broader interests of society.
Called psikhushkas, Soviet psychiatric wards were a place where dissenters could be both confined and treated for their perceived conditions. Psikhushkas soon became an integral part of the larger psychiatric system, in which genuine psychiatric science worked in parallel with the politically imposed version. To a degree, it became part of a two-tiered system in which psychiatry was used as a form of political repression (primarily operating out of the Moscow Institute for Forensic Psychiatry) and a more genuine psychiatry (as practiced in the Leningrad Psychoneurological Institute). Once in full swing, the new system became integrated in hundreds of hospitals across the Soviet Union.
SOUNDS LIKE THE GOALS OF AFFORDABLE CARE ACT FUNDING FOR MENTAL ILLNESS.
The campaign adopted a greater sense of mission during the late 1960s when open dissention started to become more commonplace, most notably through the agitation of such thinkers and activists as Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov. KBG chairman Yuri Andropov, who went on to become Premier, called for a renewed struggle against "dissidents and their imperialist masters." To that end he outlined and implemented a plan that went into effect in 1969. Looking to wipe out political dissent in the Soviet Union once and for all, Andropov made sure that psychiatry would continue to be used as a tool in the struggle.
Specifically, he issued a decree on "measures for preventing dangerous behavior (acts) on the part of mentally ill persons." Consequently, psychiatrists were both empowered and expected to diagnose and confine anyone who fit the description of a political agitator. Doctors were even told to "haul" or "entrap" suspected dissenters, thus making them not only de facto arresting officers, but interrogators as well. Psychiatrists were compelled to come-up with diagnoses, allowing the police and the state to forego inconveniences such as due process and court judgments (such that they were at the time).
That said, Soviet doctors did use formal procedures to diagnoses their patients. The state, with the help of some overzealous psychiatrists, was considerate enough to provide a list of symptoms that could be used to make a diagnosis.
The most common of these was a condition called "sluggish schizophrenia," a psychological disorder that was developed by Andrei Snezhnevsky at the Moscow School of Psychiatry. Snezhnevsky agreed with the Communist Party's sentiment that citizens who opposed the Soviet regime must be mentally unwell since there could be no other logical rationale why anyone would oppose the world's greatest sociopolitical system.
Consequently, he came up with a form of schizophrenia that not only characterized political deviance as a failure to properly grasp reality, but one that could very easily be applied to anyone exhibiting contrarian tendencies. Specifically, they described it as "a continuous type [of schizophrenia] that is defined as unremitting, proceeding with either a rapid ("malignant") or a slow ("sluggish") progression and has a poor prognosis in both instances."
In other words, it was a pervasive, subtle, and pernicious kind of schizophrenia that couldn't be cured. Moreover, psychotic symptoms were not required for the diagnosis. Psychiatrists were told to look for other underlying conditions, such as psychopathy, hypochondria, and anxiety. But they were also on the lookout for such socially reprehensible traits like pessimism, poor social adaptation, conflict with authorities, "reform delusions," perseverance, and "struggles for truth and justice" — traits that could, on their own, be sufficient for a diagnosis.
According to Snezhnevsky, patients with sluggish schizophrenia could go unnoticed by the untrained eye and pass for regular folk — that they were "quasi-sane." It was only through a proper diagnosis by a trained professional that they could be identified.
In reality, it was a tool to isolate and imprison hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. It was nothing less than torture.
The human toll inflicted by Soviet psychoprisons is one that's largely lost in history, but significant nonetheless. Some survivors, such as Viktor Nekipelov, have gone on to suggest that the those involved were "no better than the criminal doctors who performed inhuman experiments on the prisoners in Nazi concentration camps."
Other prominent dissidents included renowned Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov, poet Joseph Brodsky, Pyotr Grigorenko, Valery Tarsis, and Natalya Gorbanevskaya.
As for the exact scale of the practice, it is difficult to discern the numbers — but as work by historians continues a picture is starting to emerge.
According to the archives of the International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry, no less than 20,000 citizens were hospitalized for political reasons — a number that most historians agree is likely low on account of unreleased documentation (there are a lot of people alive today who could be badly implicated by this information).
What is known is that, with the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s, the practice was (mostly) discontinued, leading to the release of many political prisoners. The year 1986 saw the release of 19 prisoners, followed by 64 in 1987. In 1988, it was announced that, of the 5.5 million Soviets listed on the psychiatric register, over 30% would be taken off the list. A year later the number was revised and shown to be closer to 10.2 million people registered at "psychoneurological dispensaries" — along with a whopping 335,200 hospital beds set aside.
And sadly, the practice has not gone completely out of favor in today's Russia, with some concerned that punitive psychiatry is making a comeback.
Disturbing episode for all of psychiatry
While it might be easy to dismiss this chapter of Soviet history as an interesting consequence of totalitarian and authoritarian politics, it also serves as a disturbing reminder of the normative nature of psychiatry and the assessment of psychiatric disorders. Mental health is a culturally sanctioned thing. Our definitions of mental health change over time depending on the values and morals of the society in question.
Today, our concerns are with those people who pose a threat to themselves and impose a burden on society, and in turn we've come to pathologize such things as gambling, depression, anxiety, and overeating. Looking to the future, it's not ridiculous to think we might do the same for shyness, extreme religious beliefs, or racial bigotry. But given the diversity of human culture and individual experience, could we ever in all fairness agree upon and impose a singular vision of what's mentally normal?
We have discussed in detail and often the goals of AFFORDABLE CARE ACT and how all that mental health system structure will end in nefarious far-right wing authoritarian, militaristic global corporate FASCIST fear used against political dissent and just about any other reason. So, here is US national FAKE NEWS media pretending MCCAIN is a hero for fighting to save AFFORDABLE CARE ACT--- made to appear a national HERO fighting for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE when goals of MOVING FORWARD civil unrest civil war inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will use those mental health structures built by AFFORDABLE CARE ACT in same way FASCIST HITLER/STALIN/MAO used them.
So, MCCAIN we are told was a VIETNAM VET subjected to war-time prison abuses-----pushing as hard as he can what he KNEW would become that same far-right fascist fear-making tool courtesy global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'Thank you @SenJohnMcCain for being a hero again and again and now AGAIN
— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) September 22, 2017JOHN MCCAIN, AMERICAN HERO.
I literally have tears in my eyes.
— Topher Spiro (@TopherSpiro) September 22, 2017'
Indeed Bernie was a strong supporter pretending PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS in a bill designed to end our US strong public health care access for 99% WE THE PEOPLE------Bernie not worried about all that funding for MENTAL HEALTH with no ability of local citizens to CHANGE/CONTROL these global health systems.....Bernie and McCain quite the global banking 1% corporate FASCISTS
'Bernie Sanders on the Affordable Care Act: - Democratic ...
Bernie wrote this the day the Supreme Court upheld the law: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It ... '
John McCain Saves Obamacare Once Again
The Arizona Republican announced his opposition to the latest GOP repeal plan, all but certainly giving its critics the votes to block it.
Sep 22, 2017 Updated on September 22 at 3:28 p.m. ET
For the second time this year, Senator John McCain appears to have preserved the signature domestic achievement of the man who once kept him from the presidency.
The Arizona Republican on Friday announced that he could not “in good conscience” support the latest GOP proposal to substantially repeal the Affordable Care Act, all but certainly dooming the effort. McCain became the third Senate Republican to oppose the legislation offered by Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, which was headed for a floor vote next week. Republicans could only afford to lose two of their 52 members and have Vice President Mike Pence cast a tie-breaking vote to pass the bill.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been denouncing the proposal as “Obamacare lite” and “fake repeal” for a week, drawing the ire of President Trump and other supporters of the bill. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has voted against each of the GOP repeal plans, and she strongly suggested she would oppose this one. Republicans were up against a September 30 deadline for using a budget process that would circumvent a Democratic filibuster and allow them to pass health-care legislation with only 51 votes.
McCain torpedoed the last GOP bill in July, returning to the Senate after being diagnosed with brain cancer only to cast a surprising and dramatic 50th vote against a limited-repeal of Obamacare offered by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But until Friday afternoon, he was officially undecided on the Graham-Cassidy proposal, apparently torn between his disgust for the party’s rushed, partisan legislative process and his famously close friendship with Graham, its most vocal salesman.
“I would consider supporting legislation similar to that offered by my friends Senators Graham and Cassidy were it the product of extensive hearings, debate, and amendment,” McCain said in a lengthy written statement. “But that has not been the case. Instead, the specter of September 30th budget reconciliation deadline has hung over this entire process.”
We should not be content to pass health-care legislation on a party-line basis, as Democrats did when they rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2009. If we do so, our success could be as short-lived as theirs when the political winds shift, as they regularly do. The issue is too important, and too many lives are at risk, for us to leave the American people guessing from one election to the next whether and how they will acquire health insurance. A bill of this impact requires a bipartisan approach.
I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won’t be available by the end of the month, we won’t have reliable answers to any of those questions.
McCain acknowledged that his friendship with Graham put him in a difficult spot. “I take no pleasure in announcing my opposition. Far from it,” he said. “The bill’s authors are my dear friends, and I think the world of them. I know they are acting consistently with their beliefs and sense of what is best for the country. So am I.”
The Graham-Cassidy bill had gained momentum rapidly after its authors introduced it last week, as Republican leaders seized on one final chance to keep the repeal-and-replace promise they had been making to conservative voters for seven years. The legislation was in some ways more modest than previous Obamacare repeal proposals, as it kept most of the tax increases Democrats used to pay for the 2010 law and converted the revenue into block grants for the states. But it went further in other respects by allowing states broad latitude to opt out of the laws core consumer protections, such as requiring insurers to cover “essential health benefits” and forbidding them from charging higher rates to people with preexisting conditions.
ALL THAT RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN POSING ON AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND NONE OF THOSE CHANGES ADDRESSED THE GOALS OF MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL BANKING 1% HITLER/STALIN FASCIST MENTAL HEALTH POLICIES.
Most Republican senators backed the bill’s “federalist” approach even as they acknowledged they did not have time to fully scrutinize its potential effects. The Congressional Budget Office said it would not be able to fully evaluate the proposal for weeks, but with the September 30 deadline looming, McConnell announced his intention to bring the bill up for a vote anyway.
Democrats kicked their opposition campaign back into overdrive, aided by the late-night broadsides Jimmy Kimmel delivered against Cassidy, the first-term Louisianan who had earlier promised not to back legislation that would roll back protections for people with preexisting conditions. Their targets were McCain and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who had opposed the legislation in July but remained undecided on Graham-Cassidy.
Hoping to pressure Republican senators, McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan leaned on Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee to pull out of bipartisan negotiations on a narrower Obamacare fix that he was holding as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. But that move appears to have backfired: In his statement, McCain urged Alexander to continue seeking a bipartisan solution with Senator Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the committee.
Democrats reacted to McCain’s announcement with the same mix of relief and praise as they did after his surprising thumbs-down in July. The word “hero” lit up Twitter timelines, as Obamacare supporters likened McCain’s decision to his years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
'Thank you @SenJohnMcCain for being a hero again and again and now AGAIN
— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) September 22, 2017JOHN MCCAIN, AMERICAN HERO.
I literally have tears in my eyes.
— Topher Spiro (@TopherSpiro) September 22, 2017'
On Capitol Hill, Democrats quickly called for a return to bipartisan negotiations to shore up the law’s shaky individual-market insurance exchanges. “John McCain shows the same courage in Congress that he showed when he was a naval aviator,” said the Senate minority leader, Charles Schumer. “I have assured Senator McCain that as soon as repeal is off the table, we Democrats are intent on resuming the bipartisan process.”
But it was unclear what Republicans intended to do. There was no immediate word from McConnell on whether he would still bring up Graham-Cassidy for a vote next week that now is likely to fail. Meanwhile, Graham issued a statement saying that while he disagreed with McCain’s position, “My friendship with [McCain] is not based on how he votes but respect for how he’s lived his life and the person he is.” As for his bill, Graham said, “We press on.” But he did not lay out a path forward, either for the legislation he offered or for the GOP’s broader goal of repealing Obamacare—both of which appear, again, to be out of reach.
Most American citizens are aware of CHEKHOV through less dark short stories and plays------we loved
"Plays by Anton Chekhov"
The following 16 pages are in this category, out of 16 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
The Bear (play)
The Cherry Orchard
A Marriage Proposal
On the Harmful Effects of Tobacco
Moscow Art Theatre production of The Seagull
Three Sisters (play)
A Tragedian in Spite of Himself
The Wedding (Chekhov play)
The Wood Demon (play)
What most American citizens do not know is CHEKHOV'S writings tied to what would become RUSSIAN gulag fascism during far-right wing LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
We are reading a NEWLY released translation of collected stories by CHEKOV all of which delve into these very dark natures of humans with fear of mis-diagnosed madness as scary as the actual madness. In Chekov stories we are all simply a step away from MADNESS.
No need to fight that diagnosis of madness-----just accept it. This Russian pessimism creates moral ambivalence ----
Anton Chekhov The Social Origins of Mental Illness
- Matt Raphael Johnson
Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) Recorded April 12, 2012 Anton Chekhov The Social Origins of Mental Illness. Matt Raphael Johnson discusses: Chekhov and the…
'The Breakdown of Aristocratic Society
In 1861, when Chekhov was one year old, Tsar Alexander II liberated Russian serfs. This act seemed to herald the dawn of a new age and the collapse of aristocratic privilege, although, in reality, peasants were still impoverished, disempowered, and tied to the land'.
'In most of his stories, therefore, Chekhov deals with the breakdown of an old social order with characteristic moral ambivalence'.
This is what these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have been installing in US ------ambivalence to all that far-right wing OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' DARK AGES moral and ethical ambivalence. There's no way to STOP MOVING FORWARD say global banking 5% freemason/Greek players-----
Death and Disease
Disease features prominently in Chekhov's stories, and his protagonists often suffer tragic and untimely deaths. It is unsurprising that the author seems haunted by the notion of infirmity, since he was plagued by tuberculosis for most of his adult life and died of the disease at the age of forty-four. Often—as in The Black Monk and The Grasshopper—disease acts as a physical representation of a character's psychological turmoil. Osip sickens in The Grasshopper because he is depressed about his wife's infidelity, while Chekhov subtly blends the symptoms of Kovrin's mental illness with those of tuberculosis in The Black Monk. But the author's recurring use of this theme is neither pathological nor self-pitying; Chekhov recognizes man's subservience to forces greater than his or her own will. The author uses the symbolic power of his dying protagonists—such as Kovrin in The Black Monk or Rabin in Ward No. six—to emphasize life's transience as well as humankind's subservience to the whims of fate. Chekhov also examines disease as a reflection of social degeneration. For example, Kovrin's psychosis— which ruins his marriage, kills his father- in-law and wrecks Yegor's prized orchard—seems to symbolize the disintegration of society at large. Chekhov thus focuses on disease to indicate individual frailty as well as the growing conflicts within society.
Disillusionment and Failed Ideals
Chekhov's stories examine many kinds of disappointment and failed ideals. Often the protagonists are disillusioned by events that force them to reevaluate their personal philosophies and understanding of the world, and this disillusionment usually occurs toward the end of stories. Such climaxes range from the mildly pathetic—as when the narrator in The Night Before Easter sees Jerome in daylight and realizes that he is just an ordinary man, to the monumentally tragic—such as Rabin's incarceration in Ward No. six and his subsequent nervous breakdown. The protagonists of The Darling and My Life also tackle frustrated dreams, loneliness, and the breakdown of romantic ties, but they never fundamentally alter their view of the world. Consequently, we see that Chekhov's tales conclude with either a moment of revelation or anti-climax (these endings have been termed "zero" and "surprise" endings, respectively.) His protagonists are either crushed by their sense of disillusionment with the world, or they hold out hope in a better future.
The Breakdown of Aristocratic Society
In 1861, when Chekhov was one year old, Tsar Alexander II liberated Russian serfs. This act seemed to herald the dawn of a new age and the collapse of aristocratic privilege, although, in reality, peasants were still impoverished, disempowered, and tied to the land. Many intellectuals began to discuss ideas on liberty and the rights of all social classes to land and education. Although Chekhov did not openly speculate on the fall of the old social order, his writing shows that he was caught up in the debate. Many of his stories examine the effect of change on a prevailing social or familial hierarchy. For example, My Life focuses on a young member of the gentry who defies his father and social convention by working as a laborer. But Chekhov is very subtle in his treatment of change. Most often, the revolutions one witnesses in the stories are neither positive nor negative; they are simply alterations to established systems. In the Ravine deals with a mercenary, Grigori Tsybukin, who is ousted from his position of power when his cunning daughter-in-law takes over the family business. Similarly, Rabin's confinement in Ward No. six shows how professionals as well as peasants can be subjected to social coercion. The only obvious change for the worse occurs in The Black Monk, when Yegor's orchard passes into the hands of a younger generation and is ruined. In most of his stories, therefore, Chekhov deals with the breakdown of an old social order with characteristic moral ambivalence.
We don't think it a coincidence that today's global banking 1% media FAD is this idea that TALKING TO YOURSELF MAKES FOR INTELLIGENCE---GENIUS------at the same time a CHEKOV made his anti-heroes steeped in TALKING TO THEMSELVES----THINKING THEMSELVES INTELLIGENT.
As someone always talking to my plants and pets-------we see a disturbing trend in that dastardly global banking 1% FAD-MAKING media ------today's seniors who are generally called ECCENTRIC for these behaviors tied with aging are not going to be the one's targeted in MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE.
Talking to Yourself Out Loud May Be a Sign of Higher ...
Talking to Yourself Out Loud May Be a Sign of Higher Intelligence, Find Researchers A new study shows how talking to yourself may help your brain perform better. Paul Ratner
Why Talking to Yourself Might be The Highest Form of ...
49 thoughts on “ Why Talking to Yourself Might be The Highest Form of Intelligence ” Mark on January 25, 2009 at 12:44 pm said: Another way of looking at this is that it is not the verbal reformulation of the problem that is important but rather the unfocussing on the problem itself.
Sign Of Intelligence: Talking To Yourself Helps Boost Brain ...
Sign Of Intelligence: Talking To Yourself Helps Boost Brain Power, Achieve Goals May 5, 2017 07:00 PM By Lizette Borreli @lizcelineb firstname.lastname@example.org Science finds talking to yourself is a sign of intelligence, not mental illness.
People Who Talk To Themselves Aren't Crazy, They're Actually ...
Talking to yourself, it turns out, is a sign of genius. The smartest people on earth talk to themselves. Look at the inner monologues of the greatest thinkers. Look at poetry! Look at history!
This article below is listed under EDUCATION MEDIA-------people have forever spoken out loud to memorize-----to organize thoughts-----but when we enter a far-right wing authoritarian fascist era -----the smallest of behaviors become open for MENTAL ILLNESS claims. Remember, our American colonial period filled with BURNING OF WITCHES because these women were practicing simple traditional herbal remedies taking away business from BARBER SURGEONS.
Since today our REAL left social progressive citizens would be considers POLITICAL DISSENTERS in far-right wing FASCISM----we are glad to be aging out before they send in the BARBER SURGEONS. STAND UP today because it is EASY PEASY to STOP MOVING FORWARD.
If you do all these things listed in this article---the MOBILE MENTAL HEALTH WAGON here in Baltimore will be sent out to whisk you away to CHEKOV----VILLE.
People Who Talk To Themselves Aren’t Crazy, They’re Actually Geniuses
Education Feb 2, 2016
7 Reasons Why Talking To Yourself Shows You Might Be a Genius
Fot those of you that share this trait, here are 7 reasons why talking to yourself shows you might be a genius!
Maybe you’ve heard about schizophrenic people who talk with their alter ego not being aware that is no other person around, only the products of their ill mind.
Maybe you’ve seen some academy award-winning movies in this regard, such as “Psycho” or “A Beautiful Mind”.
But talking to your(other)self is not a bad sign if your mind is healthy. On the contrary, if you are completely aware that the other voice inside your head your head is still you, but with another attitude, this can show you have a great mind struggling to achieve results.
Here are 7 reasons why you should keep talking to yourself as this shows you might be a genius, not a mental case.
1. Talking to yourself leads you to a needed conclusion
It’s already a cliché: crazy people talk to themselves… but not only them. “I’m perfectly normal, the voices told me” is just a good joke and remains only that.
In fact, talking to the voice inside your head it’s just a way to debate your own ideas, to clear your thoughts, thus getting you closer to make a choice or to draw a conclusion.
As researchers proved it, talking to yourself increases the performance of your brain; it doesn’t make you insane but focused.
It helps you setting a goal a strategy to accomplish the goal. So start talking to yourself, you have a choice to make!
2. Talking to yourself motivates you to get the job done
Last year, two psychologists published in the European Journal of Social Psychology a study on the inner speech that found that talking to you ( not “I”) also matters, as second-person self-talk (as psychologist call the act of talking to yourself) is more motivational than first-person self-talk.
Other previous studies had also found that self-talk can motivate you and help you accomplished a difficult task at work. “You can do it. Go for it!” and other motivational mantras said to yourself out loud are a strong impetus on the way to your objective.
Therefore, people who talk to themselves are more successful and thus easily climb the professional ladder.
3. You can learn faster while talking to yourself
When we are little kids, we have to listen to the voices of others in order to learn how to speak. When we grow up, we must hear our own voices in order to learn faster.
Our mental and vocal self-talk is essential in learning, as researchers have found that talking to yourself is an amazing stimulus for the brain.
The more you talk to yourself, the smarter you will be.
Moreover, self-talk increases your attention, which allows you to concentrate regardless what noises are around you. And a study showed that if you tell yourself where you put an object, you will remember easier where you put it.
So talking to yourself might improve your memory.
4. A lot of talking to yourself shows inner richness
If one’s mind is poor, what is to talk about? A lot of ideas struggling to get out of your head make you talk to yourself in the first place, which prove you are self-reliant. It’s definitely a sign of intelligence and creative thinking, not a sing of insanity.
When I read a good book, I can clearly imagine my favorite authors talking to themselves in front of the writing machine or computer in order to find the best ideas to send their messages to the world.
In this regard, talking to yourself might help you in organizing your thoughts, in finding the best idea for something you want to do. If you talk to yourself, each phase of the decision making process will become easier.
5. Talking to yourself improves your state of mind
Self-talk can take be a motivational mantra, a talk with your alter ego or inner monologue, whatever works best for you.
Repeating a mantra many times a day can change the way you feel about yourself. It really works and can make you feel better, smarter, stronger and ready to take action needed to get you where you want.
A conversation with yourself can wash away bad mood by reminding yourself that you are in control and you have the power to face any problem, even if it is hard and you are afraid.
This sort of inner monologue between two versions of you has a quick and lasting effect if you are consistent and you do it repeatedly. Regardless the method you choose, focus on the positive as the inner monologue goes both ways.
6. Talking to yourself can make you your own therapist
When you are nervous, angry or disappointed, hearing your problems spoken out loud can always calm you down.
Good therapy aims at removing stress anger and other negative feelings. Therefore self-talk is the best therapy, as no one could be more interested in your wellness then yourself!
It’s like having your own therapist anytime available.
So lie down on the couch and psychoanalyze yourself. After all, they are your problems, so who is the most qualified to solve it?
7. Inner self-talk can make you famous when you get it out
Genius people let their thought to get out in masterpieces. What if you are one of them? After all, they talked to themselves, too!
If there is a person identifying with genius par excellence, that’s Albert Einstein. And guess what?! He also used to talk to himself! And when he put his thoughts on paper, he turned from a “dyslexic” or “schizophrenic”-labeled man, talking to himself in public, into the famous scientist of the world.
In fact, most of the greatest thinkers of our world put their deepest thoughts on paper and this made them famous and admired. Don’t even want to get started on Salvador Dali!
Their inner monologues became poetry, philosophy, literature… So don’t be afraid to let your thoughts get out in a speech or on a piece of paper, this might turn you into a praised thinker of your generation.
We want to return once more to all the US national media surrounding the OBAMA NDAA highlighting 2 sections in NDAA as indeed killing US civil liberties----we had those far-right wing global banking 1% ACLU lawyers working for the right of global rich to accumulate wealth anyway they can-------taking to US SUPREME COURT these two sections----all these global banking 5% freemason/Greek players pretending to be protecting our US civil liberties NEVER MENTION ANY OTHER Obama-era public policy being FAR-WORSE in its reach against civil liberties.
TRUTHDIG remember is a far-right wing global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal site where TRUTH IS MADE IRONIC -----making a headline of these two NDAA issues--------when our Federal agencies like health and human services and education are filled with far - reaching policies in MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD HITLER/STALIN FASCIST policies.
Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers…
Chris Hedges is a raging global banking 5% freemason/Greek player being made a FAKE 'LEFTIST' communist while being team ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE------journalists do not win PULITZER-PRIZES if they are indeed 99% LEFT POPULIST
Obama looking very global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA in this photo.
Feb 11, 2013 TD originals
The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State
On Wednesday a few hundred activists crowded into the courtroom of the Second Circuit, the spillover room with its faulty audio feed and dearth of chairs, and Foley Square outside the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan where many huddled in the cold. The fate of the nation, we understood, could be decided by the three judges who will rule on our lawsuit against President Barack Obama for signing into law Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The section permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who “substantially support” — an undefined legal term — al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces,” again a term that is legally undefined. Those detained can be imprisoned indefinitely by the military and denied due process until “the end of hostilities.” In an age of permanent war this is probably a lifetime. Anyone detained under the NDAA can be sent, according to Section (c)(4), to any “foreign country or entity.” This is, in essence, extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens. It empowers the government to ship detainees to the jails of some of the most repressive regimes on earth.
Section 1021(b)(2) was declared invalid in September after our first trial, in the Southern District Court of New York. The Obama administration appealed the Southern District Court ruling. The appeal was heard Wednesday in the Second Circuit Court with Judges Raymond J. Lohier, Lewis A. Kaplan and Amalya L. Kearse presiding. The judges might not make a decision until the spring when the Supreme Court rules in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, another case in which I am a plaintiff. The Supreme Court case challenges the government’s use of electronic surveillance. If we are successful in the Clapper case, it will strengthen all the plaintiffs’ standing in Hedges v. Obama. The Supreme Court, if it rules against the government, will affirm that we as plaintiffs have a reasonable fear of being detained.
If we lose in Hedges v. Obama — and it seems certain that no matter the outcome of the appeal this case will reach the Supreme Court — electoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome. If we lose, the power of the military to detain citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military prisons will become a terrifying reality. Democrat or Republican. Occupy activist or libertarian. Socialist or tea party stalwart. It does not matter. This is not a partisan fight. Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags. I lived under several military dictatorships during the two decades I was a foreign correspondent. I know the beast.
“The stakes are very high,” said attorney Carl Mayer, who with attorney Bruce Afran brought our case to trial, in addressing a Culture Project audience in Manhattan on Wednesday after the hearing. “What our case comes down to is: Are we going to have a civil justice system in the United States or a military justice system? The civil justice system is something that is ingrained in the Constitution. It was always very important in combating tyranny and building a democratic society. What the NDAA is trying to impose is a system of military justice that allows the military to police the streets of America to detain U.S. citizens, to detain residents in the United States in military prisons. Probably the most frightening aspect of the NDAA is that it allows for detention until ‘the end of hostilities.’ ” [To see videos of Mayer, Afran, Hedges and others participating in the Culture Project panel discussion, click here.]
Five thousand years of human civilization has left behind innumerable ruins to remind us that the grand structures and complex societies we build, and foolishly venerate as immortal, crumble into dust. It is the descent that matters now. If the corporate state is handed the tools, as under Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA, to use deadly force and military power to criminalize dissent, then our decline will be one of repression, blood and suffering. No one, not least our corporate overlords, believes that our material conditions will improve with the impending collapse of globalization, the steady deterioration of the global economy, the decline of natural resources and the looming catastrophes of climate change.
But the global corporatists — who have created a new species of totalitarianism — demand, during our decay, total power to extract the last vestiges of profit from a degraded ecosystem and disempowered citizenry. The looming dystopia is visible in the skies of blighted postindustrial cities such as Flint, Mich., where drones circle like mechanical vultures. And in an era where the executive branch can draw up secret kill lists that include U.S. citizens, it would be naive to believe these domestic drones will remain unarmed.
Robert M. Loeb, the lead attorney for the government in Wednesday’s proceedings, took a tack very different from that of the government in the Southern District Court of New York before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Forrest repeatedly asked the government attorneys if they could guarantee that the other plaintiffs and I would not be subject to detention under Section 1021(b)(2). The government attorneys in the first trial granted no such immunity. The government also claimed in the first trial that under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF), it already had the power to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1021(b)(2), the attorneys said, did not constitute a significant change in government power. Judge Forrest in September rejected the government’s arguments and ruled Section 1021(b)(2) invalid.
The government, however, argued Wednesday that as “independent journalists” we were exempt from the law and had no cause for concern. Loeb stated that if journalists used journalism as a cover to aid the enemy, they would be seized and treated as enemy combatants. But he assured the court that I would be untouched by the new law as long as “Mr. Hedges did not start driving black vans for people we don’t like.” Loeb did not explain to the court who defines an “independent journalist.” I have interviewed members of al-Qaida as well as 16 other individuals or members of groups on the State Department’s terrorism list. When I convey these viewpoints, deeply hostile to the United States, am I considered by the government to be “independent”? Could I be seen by the security and surveillance state, because I challenge the official narrative, as a collaborator with the enemy? And although I do not drive black vans for people Loeb does not like, I have spent days, part of the time in vehicles, with armed units that are hostile to the United States. These include Hamas in Gaza and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in southeastern Turkey.
I traveled frequently with armed members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador and the Sandinista army in Nicaragua during the five years I spent in Central America. Senior officials in the Reagan administration regularly denounced many of us in the press as fifth columnists and collaborators with terrorists. These officials did not view us as “independent.” They viewed us as propagandists for the enemy. Section 1021(b)(2) turns this linguistic condemnation into legal condemnation.
Alexa O’Brien, another plaintiff and a co-founder of the US Day of Rage, learned after WikiLeaks released 5 million emails from Stratfor, a private security firm that does work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that Stratfor operatives were trying to link her and her organization to Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida, and sympathetic websites as well as jihadist ideology. If that link were made, she and those in her organization would not be immune from detention.
Afran said at the Culture Project discussion that he once gave a donation at a fundraising dinner to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic organization. A few months later, to his surprise, he received a note of thanks from Sinn Féin. “I didn’t expect to be giving money to a group that maintains a paramilitary terrorist organization, as some people say,” Afran said. “This is the danger. You can easily find yourself in a setting that the government deems worthy of incarceration. This is why people cease to speak out.”
The government attempted in court last week to smear Sami Al-Hajj, a journalist for the Al-Jazeera news network who was picked up by the U.S. military and imprisoned for nearly seven years in Guantanamo. This, for me, was one of the most chilling moments in the hearing.
“Just calling yourself a journalist doesn’t make you a journalist, like Al-Hajj,” Loeb told the court. “He used journalism as a cover. He was a member of al-Qaida and provided Stinger missiles to al-Qaida.”
Al-Hajj, despite Loeb’s assertions, was never charged with any crimes. And the slander by Loeb only highlighted the potential for misuse of this provision of the NDAA if it is not struck down.
The second central argument by the government was even more specious. Loeb claimed that Subsection 1021(e) of the NDAA exempts citizens from detention. Section 1021(e) states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
Afran countered Loeb by saying that Subsection 1021(e) illustrated that the NDAA assumed that U.S. citizens would be detained by the military, overturning two centuries of domestic law that forbids the military to carry out domestic policing. And military detention of citizens, Afran noted, is not permitted under the Constitution.
Afran quoted the NDAA bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said on the floor of the Senate: “In the case where somebody is worried about being picked up by a rogue executive branch because they went to the wrong political rally, they don’t have to worry very long, because our federal courts have the right and the obligation to make sure the government proves their case that you are a member of al-Qaida and didn’t [just] go to a political rally.”
Afran told the court that Graham’s statement implicitly acknowledged that U.S. citizens could be detained by the military under 1021(b)(2). “There is no reason for the sponsor to make that statement if he does not realize that the statute causes that chilling fear,” Afran told the judges.
After the hearing Afran explained: “If the senator who sponsored and managed the bill believed people would be afraid of the law, then the plaintiffs obviously have a reasonably objective basis to fear the statute.”
In speaking to the court Afran said of 1021(e): “It says it is applied to people in the United States. It presumes that they are going to be detained under some law. The only law we know of is this law. What other laws, before this one, allowed the military to detain people in this country?”
This was a question Judge Lohier, at Afran’s urging, asked Loeb during the argument. Loeb concurred that the NDAA was the only law he knew of that permitted the military to detain and hold U.S. citizens.