US Discovers Largest Oil Reserves in the World-In the United States

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

rotorhead-good job on clarifying information 'true" and "false".

Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the USA, while there is a lot of argument if there is the most oil in the world in Canada - proven reserves have it in the top couple of countries regardless. Somehow it is always the middle east that comes up in discussion though.

Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the USA, while there is a lot of argument if there is the most oil in the world in Canada - proven reserves have it in the top couple of countries regardless. Somehow it is always the middle east that comes up in discussion though.

Who supplies the US is meaningless though. Oil is a global commodity and is priced as such. Even if 0% of oil that the U.S. used came from the Middle East, if the Middle East stopped production tomorrow the price the U.S. would have to pay for oil would go up because the Canadians would sell their oil to someone else for a higher price and we'd have no choice but to match our buy orders to the new higher price.

The market seems to be doing a very good job of indicating to us how much oil we have left. Prices are increasing as demand increases and new supply doesn't completely keep up which is a good thing. It makes new sources more economically viable to explore (higher price = more incentive to explore untested fields) and also stimulates invention in the field of alternatives to oil. While it isn't perfect, the market will do a far better job than government could at making sure that the impact that occurs as oil supplies dwindle will be gradual enough so that we can phase into other methods for fulfilling our energy needs. The sky is not falling but politicians long ago found that chicken little often gets elected and they have stuck with what works by scaring us about how we are going to wake up one day and have no oil which is absurd.

Sean

It's too bad OIL prices have evolved to be so "free"-market driven while COAL and natural gas prices are essentially controlled by public utility commission caps on electricity costs. Caps work and you don't see coal and gas companies going broke either.

Govt has a role it could play. Imagine if they passed a law that said "by 2015" all new homes and office buildings had to provide at least half of their power by solar or other alternative means, -and by 2018 all new passenger cars had to be hybrid or would face a heavy tax, -and by 2020 all gas guzzlers getting less than 40 mpg had to be off the road or pay a heavy tax. The only thing missing is leadership.

Totally agree with you Neil -

Jumbie -STX

We very much disagree on this issue.

First natural gas is traded on commodity markets just like oil. Here's the CNN page where you can track it's price etc.: http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/. Coal is also traded on commodity markets. And it's price is effected by the increase in oil prices as they all broadly form "energy" commodities and are entangled. It is true that coal has been less volatile than oil though, but prices for stateside utilities have still gone up as energy costs in general have gone up. This is due to market conditions, supply of all forms of energy have not kept up with increase in global demand. The states just have more diversity in the energy sources they use so when oil went up it did hit them but not directly the way it hit us as we have no other choice for our energy BUT oil.

If by 2015 all new homes and office buildings had to provide at least half their power by solar or other alternative means unemployment would go through the roof. Even here with our .40+kwh electric rates the payback on solar isn't there. The economy in the states is predicated on energy prices in the .10-.15/kwh range. To increase the cost 5 fold by mandating alternative energy would make the current recession look like a walk in the park compared to the second great depression that would occur.

I am always amused when people think know better than everyone else and if only they could force others via government to act in the way they see fit we'd have some sort of utopia. The market reflects the feelings, thoughts, and true behaviors of it's consumers. It doesn't lead to perfection for any of us because it doesn't reflect the views of what any ONE of us want, it reflects the views of what all stakeholders in the area the market serves (which for energy is the whole world) need. It's always an easy target to attack because no one is really happy with what the "market" decides. BUT the market generally gives us collectively a far better result than the opinions of small groups of special interests even if certain individuals or groups end up worse off than they would if they only had their autocratic way.

If people valued alternative energy they would be willing to pay a higher price for it. But they don't, and they don't. So you say "force them to do so." Before we listen to you guys who want to force me to do something I have to ask Neil and Jumbie: Do you have solar and other alternative energy forms making up 50% of the energy source of your home and business? If so why not if they are so valuable to you?

Sean

Dear Sean,

Gas and coal prices aren't directly controlled, but the amount the utility companies can charge consumers IS, -which has the same effect as controlling the price. That was my point on that issue.

re: your suggestion that the "payback" on solar isn't there. It IS totally there....IF you net-meter. It is not if you must install batteries. I know, I've done the research on island here. A 5kw solar installation here would cost about $25,000 after rebates, last for 20 yrs, and annually generate about $4000 in electricity ($80,000 over its lifespan) at current WAPA prices. For those states where the price is less, the savings is less, but the lessening of dependence on oil is just as good. And as more people go solar, the cost of solar will come down. What is needed is a financing mechanism for the avg homeowner and small business. (NY State did it through fuel bills to convert homeowners to high efficiency furnaces.) And we need some big projects to achieve economy of scale. Wapa is working on a solar farm proposal. We'll see.

re: "the market serves the stakeholders" Ha! If that were so, we wouldn't have the mortgage crisis we're in. All markets need some sort of regulation. The problem with the oil market, is that it's driven by speculation and fear and brokers who want to make a killing, --and not so much by facts.

From the Huffpost Business: Rex Tillerson, the boss of ExxonMobil admitted last week that the price of oil–based purely on supply and demand- should be in the $60 to $70 a barrel range. The reason it’s above $100 a barrel, Tillerson explained, is due to the oil majors using futures contracts to lock in current high prices, and speculation that is engineered by the high-frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds...
Here are some other juicy disclosures from the hearing:

–The profits for the big 6 oil companies was $36 billion in the year’s first quarter.

re: "force them" ....Incentives toward good behavior and punishments for bad behavior are what modern governments do. A reasonable plan to remove gas guzzlers from the roads and reduce dependence on fossil fuels is a national security issue, as well as, good economic and environmental policy.

re: "do I have solar"... I rent a condo, so I do not have the option to go solar. Why 'they' don't, however, is a legitimate question. Apparently the members of the HOA who live here like throwing their money away and don't mind if I join them. Can't believe they don't even have the nearly free solar heaters, the dopes. However, I am involved with a 10kw wind turbine project here on island that will be up early this fall at a prominent location and get people asking "why don't we have more of these?"

An interesting article in Fast Company Magazine

,SolarCity is one of a handful of companies that offers solar leasing for homeowners. Customers sign up with SolarCity, and the company installs a rooftop solar PV system with no upfront cost. Homeowners pay a monthly fee--say, $110 each month for a medium-sized four kW system--and in exchange, SolarCity takes care of all maintenance and repairs for the length of the lease. This gets rid of the main barrier to rooftop solar: installation costs, which can run upwards of $10,000. It also ensures that customers pay a reliable rate for their energy, even as the power company's electricity costs rise.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1759679/why-googles-biggest-clean-energy-investment-ever-is-in-putting-solar-on-your-rooftop

Seems to me with our WAPA price and our abundant sun that a business like this would be a no brainer in the VI. We can dream.....

Facing another LEAC hike, WAPA shopping for solar power

Read more: http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/facing-another-leac-hike-wapa-shopping-for-solar-power-1.1161356#ixzz1PLk28gLQ

stiphy -- We do use alternative energy in our home vs using WAPA. Installed solar panel for hot water a couple of years ago. That cut our WAPA bill by quite a bit per month. Also we've never used electric for cooking or drying clothes. Instead we use propane and the cost of a 100# tank which lasts 6-7 months, is a lot cheaper vs an electric stove or clothes dryer.

Jumbie -STX

Yeah five things we did when we moved to STT in early 1981:

#1 installed "dykes" for making toilets use less water. Today there are water saving toilets; I have one in this house and it works very well
#2 installed water saving shower heads and faucet heads
#3 cut a path through the top of the concrete of the cistern to install a line for propane and removed the electric stove, mainly because of WAPA's unreliability
#4 always air dried cloths only using the dryer on very rare occasions (constant tropical breeze and brief rain showers really makes this a great option down there)
#5 installed a solar hot water heater

The heater was pretty simple too, it is just some tubing painted black in an enclosure with the inside painted black with a glass window on top. I suppose if you were the type to build one it would not be too hard. Also, of course, there are water saving cloth and dish washers now as well. I have always hand washed and air dried dishes; you have to keep up with it on a daily basis but if you are careful I would bet it would save water even over a water-saving dish washer, on top of saving electricity.

stiphy -- We do use alternative energy in our home vs using WAPA. Installed solar panel for hot water a couple of years ago. That cut our WAPA bill by quite a bit per month. Also we've never used electric for cooking or drying clothes. Instead we use propane and the cost of a 100# tank which lasts 6-7 months, is a lot cheaper vs an electric stove or clothes dryer.

Jumbie -STX

Those are a great start and make economic sense which is why people are doing them. I think the financing programs are key and are good for these items that are econmically sensible. But do you think this makes up 50% of your total energy usage? Did you see a 50% drop in "traditional" energy usage aka your wapa bill by doing these things?

Neil, one thing you have to factor in with the cost of going solar and getting the payout is that the individual faces the risk by owning the generation equipment rather than the power company. If a battery goes bad or a storm wipes out your solar panels etc. the homeowner is on the hook. Cost of risk is a real cost that has to be factored in and is one of the things that make solar still economically unviable at current energy prices.

Don't get me wrong, I think there will be a day when we move to other forms of energy than the ones we use currently. But I don't see a need for using the violent force of government to get us there. The market is doing what it should right now, prices for energy are increasing as the world consumes more and the traditional supply doesn't keep up. This is leading to the economic viability of alternatives which increases investment in them. Hopefully economies of scale will be such that the price of alternatives drop as they are utilized more heavily. But the idea that overnight you can mandate a change in energy usage via government is dangerous and unrealistic. I see no evidence right now that the market is not doing exactly what needs to be done at a pace that ensures stability but also yields innovation.

Sean

Those are a great start and make economic sense which is why people are doing them. I think the financing programs are key and are good for these items that are econmically sensible. But do you think this makes up 50% of your total energy usage? Did you see a 50% drop in "traditional" energy usage aka your wapa bill by doing these things?

stiphy -- Not 50%, replaced more like 20%-30% of our total energy usage. Then again I wasn't trying to replace 50%. Given we don't plan on living here much more than a few more years, solar electric is not for us due to payback vs initial cost.

Jumbie -STX

Several companies but Hess in particular have major investments in developing The Bakken fields and have been rapidly expanding/hiring in North Dakota. People literally can't build houses fast enough there to keep up with demand.

Gee, let's look at numbers.

USA's area is 3,794,083 square miles

Iran’s area is 636,374 square miles

Iran has the third largest oil deposits in the world.

The USA is almost six times larger, and ranks fourteenth in the world for oil reserves.

To boot, there are different techniques for extracting crude from different types of oil from different areas with different properties, as you should all know, since Hovensa caters exclusively to Venezuela.

The money is not in the US as far as oil is concerned, or it would be a bigger thing than it is now.

Since we are talking about oil, here is something I wrote. Please criticize it. Specifically look at the part where I mention Iran. Islander, I promise I won't do the same thing I did last time to make you delete the thread 🙂

The bottom line is that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and the wars over in the Middle East are being used as a duel excuse to take the biggest natural resource the World knows, oil, and more importantly to take the rights of not only US citizens, but of all people, away, as were given to all by our Constitution.

Here goes:

Copyright © May 10th, 2011 - All Rights Reserved
This may be reprinted as long as it is not altered

Anonymous Quote:
"Hope this means I don't have to take my shoes off and go through the scanners or get felt up at the airport now."

I won't believe bin Laden is dead until I see the Long Form Death Certificate.

I took this "political test" and I think it does evaluate my position fairly well: How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Test Results:
You Are 40% Conservative, 60% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

I voted for Obama. I was fooled. He has done pretty much the opposite of everything he campaigned on. Some of you will hold health care up, but that is just a red herring. The Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and Executive branch, and Obamacare became something that is relatively useless to almost all American citizens.

Now on the Republican side concerning health care:

Health Care Repeal Is 'Dead,' Says Top Republican, Sights Turned To Repealing Individual Mandate

That comes under the heading of, "Oh well, we did try really hard, ya know? But remember to stay focused on this government breaking problem!"

Below, when I say "we", I mean the USA as a country, as a whole, that I feel I am part of and at least somewhat responsible for what "we" do.

Set aside the facts that we are not only militarily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are in Pakistan and Libya now, as well. We have also been eyeballing Lebanon, Syria, Damascus, Egypt, and of course, Iran has always been on the table.

Don't ever say anything about "spreading Democracy" to me; what the US government did in Iran, alone, proves that is just an excuse:

The US government removed a democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, because the government in Iran wanted to nationalize the oil industry. The US government changed the power structure in Iran so that the "constitutional monarchy" of Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi could be in ultimate control, through the US government's Operation Ajax, because of Iran's vast petroleum reserves, which are the third-largest in the World.

Of course, Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was later replaced by a religious fundamentalist government, headed by Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mostafavi Moosavi Khomeini, that is now hostile to the US and its citizens.

We recently (on May 5th, five days after bin Laden) launched a Predator drone strike into Yemen to try to kill a "specially designated global terrorist" named Anwar al-Awlaki, who is a radical fundamentalist Islamic Cleric. The problem is that this man was born in New Mexico. He is a US citizen, that by our Constitution, is afforded the right to a trial before we execute him - even more so, that same Constitution provides for that same right, even if you are not a US citizen. After all, we did give the Nazis, to show the World public, at least the theater of a trial.

The wars over there are for political and monetary gain, certainly, but more importantly they are excuses for taking away citizens rights here in the US.

Obama pays tribute to unit in bin Laden raid

The last sentence of that article: "But U.S. officials have insisted that while seriously weakened by the loss of bin Laden, al Qaeda remains a dangerous force and it is time to step up efforts to crush it."

Sen. Schumer [D-NY] proposes 'No-Ride List' for Amtrak trains

"Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public,"

I am all for this, because that will definitely reduce the number of trains intentionally driven into buildings to about zero.

Janet Napolitano: Body Scanners on Trains, Boats, and Metro

Napolitano on PBS: "Terrorists are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through. I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"

So when do the "No-Boating List" "No-Driving List" and "No-Walking List" come?

"The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to take up an important privacy case for the digital age, whether the police need a warrant before using a global positioning system device to track a suspect's movements."

"The administration is appealing a lower court ruling that reversed a criminal conviction because the police did not obtain a warrant for the GPS device they secretly installed on a man's car."

The government wants the right to track our every movement, by our vehicles, without having to prove any reasonable cause.

The Right to Travel

"As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."

For Saenz v. Roe, "Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, found that although the "right to travel" was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the concept was "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence." He described three components of the right to travel:

1. The right to enter one State and leave another;
2. The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger;
3. For those who want to become permanent residents, the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens."

"United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal State participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from State to State."

"The argument revolved around whether or not Congress intended to apply equal protection rights of the 14th Amendment to citizens deprived of said rights on public facilities—i.e. roads and bridges or interState commerce facilities—by private actors with the collusion of public actors, in this case police who responded to the murderers false reports that Penn and his cohorts had committed crimes."

"Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case, pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the States under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J. Stewart wanted.)"

You all should also be aware that all the information that flows over the Internet is being stored and analysed. The Patriot Act gave the government the right to do this in the name of security, from monitoring over-seas communications of US citizens with suspected terrorists, to warrantless National Security Letters issued by the FBI (and also suspected to be used by other government agencies, like the CIA and DOD) to recover private information from any company, like ISPs, such as what web sites were contacted, and financial records from banks and credit card companies.

That's right, the US government can say, "we suspect him/her of something, turn over the records" and anyone the US government sends this to has to comply, without any reasonable cause that has to be stated to a court, and without having to have the subsequent subpoena or warrant that may have been issued by that court.

There are programs like the FBI's Carnivore that is described as: "Carnivore was a system implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that was designed to monitor email and electronic communications. It used a customizable packet sniffer that can monitor all of a target user's Internet traffic. Carnivore was implemented in October 1997 and replaced in 2005 with improved commercial software such as NarusInsight."

NaruInsight is described as: "...NarusInsight, a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the NSA and other bodies to perform mass surveillance and monitoring of citizens' and corporations' Internet communications in real-time, and whose installation in AT&T's San Francisco Internet backbone..."

Yes, the government is at least trying to create computer programs that may say, "This person who goes by the alias 'Anonymous', and whose real name may be 'Jack', wrote such-and-so on such-and-so date on such-and-so message board, and may be a pedophile terrorist."

I bet you can guess what would happen to a suspected "pedophile terrorist."

Concerning the REAL ID Act of 2005 - that's right, a version passed:

A lot of people argue(d) that REAL ID was unconstitutional, for the most part for the wrong reason(s).

I have to start with the reason that it violates the 10th Amendment:

US Constitution, 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

US Constitution, Article VI, the pertinent part only:
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What that essentially says, is that the government, Federal and/or State, is not only subservient to the Constitution, but that the Constitution is the government. The Constitution grants the Federal government the right to create laws as an extension of the Constitution, and as explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment, the States also have the right to create laws, also as an extension of the Constitution.

The Constitution makes it very clear that the Federal government's laws are subservient and not contradictory to the Constitution, and States laws are subservient and not contradictory to Federal law, as well as the Constitution.

People saying that REAL ID is/was unconstitutional because of "States Rights" are completely wrong. As long as the Federal government's laws do not violate the Constitution, they have carte blanche and the States have no choice but to follow those laws.

A national ID already exists - it's that nine digit number you call your Social Security Number. If you want to do anything, that has anything to do with the government, from a person paying you five dollars to go buy Doritos at the corner convenience store for them, to voting, you have to have an SSN.

Yes, the IRS can go after you just for being paid that five dollars and not reporting it in conjunction with your SSN.

Eventually, the government will want detailed reports from the banks and credit card companies that cover the details of the location of that store, who you are, what you bought, how much tax you paid on what you bought, and, through rights given to the government by the Patriot Act, what your SSN is.

What the real issue with REAL ID is/was, is privacy, and how REAL ID sought to collect, collate, and analyse data across Federal and State agencies, and who is/was to have access to that data.

Privacy laws of the United States

"The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone." It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. These include the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing."

"The Ninth Amendment declares that the fact a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right."

Privacy Act of 1974

"The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Public Law No. 93-579, (Dec. 31, 1974) establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by Federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements."

This is the important part of that Act, concerning the REAL ID Act:

"The Privacy Act states in part: No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains..."

Concerning the "No-Do-This Lists", is, "The Privacy Act also states: Each agency that maintains a system of records shall—

1. upon request by any individual ... permit him ... to review the record and have a copy made of all or any portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him ...
2. permit the individual to request amendment of a record pertaining to him ..."

Both of those conditions are, at best, notoriously hard for a US citizen to achieve with the No-Fly List.

Obama will be re-elected and I say that with no doubt in my mind. I would bet on it - and I am not a gambling man.

This is a setup and I am only going to look at the past two weeks:

Trump was primed, through his enormous ego that makes him easily manipulable, to say the things Trump said about Obama and the birth certificate issue.

Obama conveniently came out with his birth certificate, which now, by at least one poll, shows a shift from the same poll a year ago, from 48% to 70% believing Obama is a US citizen. Also, another poll recently taken by the Washington Post and ABC News, shows that people who believe Obama is foreign born has dropped from 20% to 10% with a remarkable change in Republicans from 31% to to 14%.

Later, Obama acted like a 5th grader and publicly taunted Trump about the birth certificate issue. The next day, bin Laden was dead.

I need to state that I have always firmly believed Obama is a US citizen and qualified to be president, as far as the conditions of the birth certificate are concerned.

The birth certificate being released was just a lead in for what happened, and is subsequently happening, because of bin Laden.

What really gets me is within hours of bin Laden dying, Cheney immediately came out and praised Obama. O'Reilly was also another surprise for me with "Conservative criticism of Obama’s handling of bin Laden is ‘crazy unreasonable’"

Also, "House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said she called former President George W. Bush on Tuesday to congratulate him on the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden."

"Following a classified briefing on the operation to take down bin Laden, Pelosi told reporters that she called the former president earlier in the day to "congratulate him and thank him for the leadership role he had played in this quest over the years."

Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . ."

"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow."

"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined."

I don't think I need to provide examples of each point on this list that is happening, here, in the USA:

Fourteen Points of Fascism

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

**************************************************
I play on-line computer games; they are a pass-time of mine. I pride myself on not cheating and following the rules. The rules are set, and I play the game by those rules.

The people in charge of our government, and not necessarily politicians, are not playing by the laws (or rules) that our Founding Fathers set as framework through our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yes I have a GED in law.

Have you had the new bin Laden cocktail? Two shots and a dash of Ocean Spray, it is very tasty and will change your opinion!

Anonymous

Since we are talking about oil, here is something I wrote. Please criticize it. Specifically look at the part where I mention Iran. Islander, I promise I won't do the same thing I did last time to make you delete the thread 🙂

The bottom line is that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and the wars over in the Middle East are being used as a duel excuse to take the biggest natural resource the World knows, oil, and more importantly to take the rights of not only US citizens, but of all people, away, as were given to all by our Constitution.

Here goes:

Copyright © May 10th, 2011 - All Rights Reserved
This may be reprinted as long as it is not altered

Anonymous Quote:
"Hope this means I don't have to take my shoes off and go through the scanners or get felt up at the airport now."

I won't believe bin Laden is dead until I see the Long Form Death Certificate.

I took this "political test" and I think it does evaluate my position fairly well: How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Test Results:
You Are 40% Conservative, 60% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

I voted for Obama. I was fooled. He has done pretty much the opposite of everything he campaigned on. Some of you will hold health care up, but that is just a red herring. The Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and Executive branch, and Obamacare became something that is relatively useless to almost all American citizens.

Now on the Republican side concerning health care:

Health Care Repeal Is 'Dead,' Says Top Republican, Sights Turned To Repealing Individual Mandate

That comes under the heading of, "Oh well, we did try really hard, ya know? But remember to stay focused on this government breaking problem!"

Below, when I say "we", I mean the USA as a country, as a whole, that I feel I am part of and at least somewhat responsible for what "we" do.

Set aside the facts that we are not only militarily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are in Pakistan and Libya now, as well. We have also been eyeballing Lebanon, Syria, Damascus, Egypt, and of course, Iran has always been on the table.

Don't ever say anything about "spreading Democracy" to me; what the US government did in Iran, alone, proves that is just an excuse:

The US government removed a democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, because the government in Iran wanted to nationalize the oil industry. The US government changed the power structure in Iran so that the "constitutional monarchy" of Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi could be in ultimate control, through the US government's Operation Ajax, because of Iran's vast petroleum reserves, which are the third-largest in the World.

Of course, Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was later replaced by a religious fundamentalist government, headed by Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mostafavi Moosavi Khomeini, that is now hostile to the US and its citizens.

We recently (on May 5th, five days after bin Laden) launched a Predator drone strike into Yemen to try to kill a "specially designated global terrorist" named Anwar al-Awlaki, who is a radical fundamentalist Islamic Cleric. The problem is that this man was born in New Mexico. He is a US citizen, that by our Constitution, is afforded the right to a trial before we execute him - even more so, that same Constitution provides for that same right, even if you are not a US citizen. After all, we did give the Nazis, to show the World public, at least the theater of a trial.

The wars over there are for political and monetary gain, certainly, but more importantly they are excuses for taking away citizens rights here in the US.

Obama pays tribute to unit in bin Laden raid

The last sentence of that article: "But U.S. officials have insisted that while seriously weakened by the loss of bin Laden, al Qaeda remains a dangerous force and it is time to step up efforts to crush it."

Sen. Schumer [D-NY] proposes 'No-Ride List' for Amtrak trains

"Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public,"

I am all for this, because that will definitely reduce the number of trains intentionally driven into buildings to about zero.

Janet Napolitano: Body Scanners on Trains, Boats, and Metro

Napolitano on PBS: "Terrorists are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through. I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"

So when do the "No-Boating List" "No-Driving List" and "No-Walking List" come?

"The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to take up an important privacy case for the digital age, whether the police need a warrant before using a global positioning system device to track a suspect's movements."

"The administration is appealing a lower court ruling that reversed a criminal conviction because the police did not obtain a warrant for the GPS device they secretly installed on a man's car."

The government wants the right to track our every movement, by our vehicles, without having to prove any reasonable cause.

The Right to Travel

"As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."

For Saenz v. Roe, "Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, found that although the "right to travel" was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the concept was "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence." He described three components of the right to travel:

1. The right to enter one State and leave another;
2. The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger;
3. For those who want to become permanent residents, the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens."

"United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal State participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from State to State."

"The argument revolved around whether or not Congress intended to apply equal protection rights of the 14th Amendment to citizens deprived of said rights on public facilities—i.e. roads and bridges or interState commerce facilities—by private actors with the collusion of public actors, in this case police who responded to the murderers false reports that Penn and his cohorts had committed crimes."

"Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case, pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the States under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J. Stewart wanted.)"

You all should also be aware that all the information that flows over the Internet is being stored and analysed. The Patriot Act gave the government the right to do this in the name of security, from monitoring over-seas communications of US citizens with suspected terrorists, to warrantless National Security Letters issued by the FBI (and also suspected to be used by other government agencies, like the CIA and DOD) to recover private information from any company, like ISPs, such as what web sites were contacted, and financial records from banks and credit card companies.

That's right, the US government can say, "we suspect him/her of something, turn over the records" and anyone the US government sends this to has to comply, without any reasonable cause that has to be stated to a court, and without having to have the subsequent subpoena or warrant that may have been issued by that court.

There are programs like the FBI's Carnivore that is described as: "Carnivore was a system implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that was designed to monitor email and electronic communications. It used a customizable packet sniffer that can monitor all of a target user's Internet traffic. Carnivore was implemented in October 1997 and replaced in 2005 with improved commercial software such as NarusInsight."

NaruInsight is described as: "...NarusInsight, a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the NSA and other bodies to perform mass surveillance and monitoring of citizens' and corporations' Internet communications in real-time, and whose installation in AT&T's San Francisco Internet backbone..."

Yes, the government is at least trying to create computer programs that may say, "This person who goes by the alias 'Anonymous', and whose real name may be 'Jack', wrote such-and-so on such-and-so date on such-and-so message board, and may be a pedophile terrorist."

I bet you can guess what would happen to a suspected "pedophile terrorist."

Concerning the REAL ID Act of 2005 - that's right, a version passed:

A lot of people argue(d) that REAL ID was unconstitutional, for the most part for the wrong reason(s).

I have to start with the reason that it violates the 10th Amendment:

US Constitution, 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

US Constitution, Article VI, the pertinent part only:
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What that essentially says, is that the government, Federal and/or State, is not only subservient to the Constitution, but that the Constitution is the government. The Constitution grants the Federal government the right to create laws as an extension of the Constitution, and as explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment, the States also have the right to create laws, also as an extension of the Constitution.

The Constitution makes it very clear that the Federal government's laws are subservient and not contradictory to the Constitution, and States laws are subservient and not contradictory to Federal law, as well as the Constitution.

People saying that REAL ID is/was unconstitutional because of "States Rights" are completely wrong. As long as the Federal government's laws do not violate the Constitution, they have carte blanche and the States have no choice but to follow those laws.

A national ID already exists - it's that nine digit number you call your Social Security Number. If you want to do anything, that has anything to do with the government, from a person paying you five dollars to go buy Doritos at the corner convenience store for them, to voting, you have to have an SSN.

Yes, the IRS can go after you just for being paid that five dollars and not reporting it in conjunction with your SSN.

Eventually, the government will want detailed reports from the banks and credit card companies that cover the details of the location of that store, who you are, what you bought, how much tax you paid on what you bought, and, through rights given to the government by the Patriot Act, what your SSN is.

What the real issue with REAL ID is/was, is privacy, and how REAL ID sought to collect, collate, and analyse data across Federal and State agencies, and who is/was to have access to that data.

Privacy laws of the United States

"The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone." It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. These include the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing."

"The Ninth Amendment declares that the fact a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right."

Privacy Act of 1974

"The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Public Law No. 93-579, (Dec. 31, 1974) establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by Federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements."

This is the important part of that Act, concerning the REAL ID Act:

"The Privacy Act states in part: No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains..."

Concerning the "No-Do-This Lists", is, "The Privacy Act also states: Each agency that maintains a system of records shall—

1. upon request by any individual ... permit him ... to review the record and have a copy made of all or any portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him ...
2. permit the individual to request amendment of a record pertaining to him ..."

Both of those conditions are, at best, notoriously hard for a US citizen to achieve with the No-Fly List.

Obama will be re-elected and I say that with no doubt in my mind. I would bet on it - and I am not a gambling man.

This is a setup and I am only going to look at the past two weeks:

Trump was primed, through his enormous ego that makes him easily manipulable, to say the things Trump said about Obama and the birth certificate issue.

Obama conveniently came out with his birth certificate, which now, by at least one poll, shows a shift from the same poll a year ago, from 48% to 70% believing Obama is a US citizen. Also, another poll recently taken by the Washington Post and ABC News, shows that people who believe Obama is foreign born has dropped from 20% to 10% with a remarkable change in Republicans from 31% to to 14%.

Later, Obama acted like a 5th grader and publicly taunted Trump about the birth certificate issue. The next day, bin Laden was dead.

I need to state that I have always firmly believed Obama is a US citizen and qualified to be president, as far as the conditions of the birth certificate are concerned.

The birth certificate being released was just a lead in for what happened, and is subsequently happening, because of bin Laden.

What really gets me is within hours of bin Laden dying, Cheney immediately came out and praised Obama. O'Reilly was also another surprise for me with "Conservative criticism of Obama’s handling of bin Laden is ‘crazy unreasonable’"

Also, "House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said she called former President George W. Bush on Tuesday to congratulate him on the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden."

"Following a classified briefing on the operation to take down bin Laden, Pelosi told reporters that she called the former president earlier in the day to "congratulate him and thank him for the leadership role he had played in this quest over the years."

Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . ."

"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow."

"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined."

I don't think I need to provide examples of each point on this list that is happening, here, in the USA:

Fourteen Points of Fascism

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

**************************************************
I play on-line computer games; they are a pass-time of mine. I pride myself on not cheating and following the rules. The rules are set, and I play the game by those rules.

The people in charge of our government, and not necessarily politicians, are not playing by the laws (or rules) that our Founding Fathers set as framework through our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yes I have a GED in law.

Have you had the new bin Laden cocktail? Two shots and a dash of Ocean Spray, it is very tasty and will change your opinion!

Anonymous

WTF!

I thought this was a relocation page!

Are the political blogs so full that you have to come over here and spout this S#@T?

Still Dreamin'

Ca. Dreamers

A bit of advice noOne: if you have an empassioned point to make and want people to actually consider/critique/digest it you need to be MUCH MORE concise. I briefly skimmed it because it was much much too long and I suspect very few if any actually read the whole thing because it is too long. Don't confuse quantity with quality. Maybe you can make a much shorter version with more links to references/data?

A bit of advice noOne: if you have an empassioned point to make and want people to actually consider/critique/digest it you need to be MUCH MORE concise. I briefly skimmed it because it was much much too long and I suspect very few if any actually read the whole thing because it is too long. Don't confuse quantity with quality. Maybe you can make a much shorter version with more links to references/data?

I cut it to as small as I thought was reasonable. As far as links, there are 49, and I don't know what else I could have linked it to.

Edit: I added a 50th, Milton Mayer at the UChicago.edu site.

You really should read it, and thanks for the criticism.

Hmm, I also decided to add a title: The Patriot Act Is Unconstitutional

OK, you convinced me. I didn't quite read every word but spent a lot more time. To summarize it appears your hypothesis is that this is really all an orchestrated effort to reduce citizens rights? If I got that right, I have to disagree. It seems you've cobbled together a lot of potential truths to try to make a story that on the surface seems to support your hypothesis (if I got it right) but I respectfully disagree that this is an orchestrated attempt to deprive us of our rights. I think that presumes a LOT more competence in execution that our government has shown with anything. If anything I suspect you will find a profit motive of an industry/company/individual at the heart of many of the things you referenced. I think the gap between the government and the people you referenced is a proxy of the ever widening gap between the haves and have-nots with the former using politicians as their proxy.

For what it's worth, I've always suspected our true oil policy is to do whatever it takes to use up all of the oil in the Middle East as fast as possible as a means of making the region politically irrelevant. I don't know any other way to explain how even with 8-years of an oil president and pro-business administrations of the prior few decades that the American government didn't do more to exploit domestic reserves or if they felt there was a shortage to pressure the Canadians who are right next door with some of the largest reserves on the planet.

I have no proof (nor time/inclination to prove this) - just an opinion.

The biggest problem I have is that The PATRIOT Act was prepared, slammed through Congress and signed into law by Bush Jr. in the 45 days after 9/11, with few people actually reading and almost none trying to understand what it means. The PATRIOT Act was prepared before-hand and ready to go, just waiting for an event like 9/11 to happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5uCd-eGXaw&feature=player_embedded#at=111

All of what I spoke about stems from The PATRIOT Act.

Where's the "close forum" option?

I would be interested in living long enough to see what happens with Saudi Arabia after their oil dries up, but I don't think that will happen in my lifetime. From wikipedia, concerning 9/11, Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon.

I would bet that after we stop sending money to SA, they will become openly hostile towards the US.

It is interesting that oil imported into the US comes from Canada #1 and Mexico #2, according to this government report. For March 2011, the US imported 82,637 thousand barrels from Canada, and 40,901 thousand barrels from Mexico. Saudi Arabia is #3 with 34,356 thousand barrels, and interestingly, Venezuela is #4 with 33,070 thousand barrels.

According to this government report the US produced annually, not monthly, a total of 5,512 thousand barrels for the year of 2010.

North Dakota produced a whopping 307 thousand barrels for the whole year of 2010. That is a monthly average of 25.6 thousand barrels for North Dakota compared to Canada's 82,637 thousand barrels that the US imported from them - I don't even want to look up how much Canada produces in total...

Where's the "close forum" option?

Real easy Neil, just don't click the link.