Is fascism coming to America? You be the judge

First topic message reminder :

Santorum’s book doesn’t deal with foreign policy but does set out his approach to domestic policy: an active use of federal power and of the tax code to promote traditional behaviors and to preserve man-woman marriages.

Unlike Tea Party activists, Santorum doesn’t shrink away from the federal government; he wants to use it to nudge people toward more virtuous behavior, which he thinks will be best taught in traditional heterosexual families.

He says, “Liberals believe that the traditional family is neither natural nor vital, that it’s an antiquated social convention which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is now inherently discriminatory and repressive toward legitimate alternative ‘families.’”

Gee, thanks, Mr. Santorum. And while you seem to be in control of my thoughts, how about marching my body into the kitchen and making myself a sandwich? I'm getting kind of hungry. Unless, of course, you would like to relinquish control of my mind.

Link

I am SICK TO DEATH of these hacks. Can't the GOP offer up a single candidate that isn't out to impose their brand of "it's for the best" fascism onto the rest of America?

Oftenwrong.

'The end is nigh''.

Reminds me of the council who built a estate of old peoples bungalows and named it 'St. Peters Close', hastily changed when someone pointed out it was probably not the best choice of name for an OAP estate.

I have come across a 'Dead Lane' on my travels. Maybe that's one more turn up the road!

Phil Hornby wrote:I have come across a 'Dead Lane' on my travels. Maybe that's one more turn up the road!

There's a Resurrection Road in, I believe, Toronto. Populated by deceased Christians/religious people?

One of the many pub closures locally was called "The Red Horse", with the result that any visitors now asking for directions get told to "turn right at the Dead Horse".

(It's our little joke)

Do you remember the old song 'The pub with no beer'. Australian based.


The Pub With No Beer

1. Well, the publican's anxious for the quota to come,
There's a faraway look on the face of the bum,
The maid's gone all cranky and the cook's actin' queer -
What a terrible place is a pub with no beer!

cho: Oh, it's lonesome away from your kindred and all
Round a campfire at night, where the wild dingoes call
But there's nothin' so lonesome, so morbid or drear
As to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer.

2. The stockman rides in with his dry, dusty throat,
Goes up to the bar, pulls a wad from his coat,
But the smile on his face quickly turns to a sneer
When the barman says suddenly, "The pub's got no beer!"

There are 5 verses.

If you can remember that coming out you're nearly as old as me

Astra. Thanks. This has been sung by numerous people, including Johnny Cash. Very popular all over the world, including the USA.

Being a subject close to a man's heart, I am not surprised at that.



First I heard of it though

astra wrote:Being a subject close to a man's heart, I am not surprised at that.



First I heard of it though

Probably because it dates back to the 1960's. I remember it when it first came out. Ooops

This discussion was started 37 days ago by Shirina, with the Santorum candidate for possible Republican choice to supplant Obama as subject. We all seem to have deviated somewhat from that original subject, perhaps because we don't take it seriously enough.

I think we should - take the matter seriously, that is. Many people are fearful of a Muslim backlash against the infidel but there are signs of equal ferocity among fundamental Christians of the United States. If they should gain the ascendancy, life will become different for everyone.

oftenwrong wrote:This discussion was started 37 days ago by Shirina, with the Santorum candidate for possible Republican choice to supplant Obama as subject. We all seem to have deviated somewhat from that original subject, perhaps because we don't take it seriously enough.

I think we should - take the matter seriously, that is. Many people are fearful of a Muslim backlash against the infidel but there are signs of equal ferocity among fundamental Christians of the United States. If they should gain the ascendancy, life will become different for everyone.

I may be talking out of the back of my head. I often do.
I know little about US politics. It has been interesting reading the posts by yourselves, and I have learnt much.
My only thought is this. I don't believe you need to worry too much about the fundmental Christians. It's true that they are 'ferocious' in their beliefs and make their voices heard.
I believe you have more to worry about with apathy among the majority of Americans. The same is the problem in this country. The last US presidential election produced a 57% turnout. 43% couldn't be bothered. That's 100 million people. I would also hazard a guess that some of those were voters who turned out because of the chance of a 'black' (hope I haven't offended anyone) President. In the UK our last turnout was 65%. Harness the 43% in the US who don't vote.

If we could harness all the votes I suspect that things would be different.

Again, these are only my thoughts. Apathy is rife among those who are disadvantaged - either poor, uneducated or immigrants. They see no reason to vote as they don't believe they can make a difference. They see things as being stacked against them and don't consider they are capable of changing things at the ballot box. . Until someone can raise their aspirations things will remain the same.
We also have the population who are content with what they have and see no reason to bother themselves.

The current situation in the world should stir us, rather than make us apathetic. We HAVE to get out of the situation we are in and put the world on an even keel. If not for our sakes, for our children and grandchildren. How we do it - I don't have the answer.

Some of what I have read on here I agree with, some I don't. When I vote I look at the party policies and try to work out what is possible and what is not. What is realistic. What is not. Who I can believe. And who I can't. Then I toss a coin and see what comes down

By the way - I did say earlier I was dotty

It's the ones who believe they are sane that are the real problem...

I'm alright, but what about the others? I'll see what God thinks about it all next time we have one of our little chats. (He calls me, I don't call Him, so don't expect a quick answer.)

I think the phrase is : " I rest my case"...

Re: Yet another right-wing fascist on the rise ...
by Phil Hornby Today at 8:12 pm

.I think the phrase is : " I rest my case"...

The verdict of the jury is 'Guilty, my Lord.

The Jewish president was visiting the US President in the Oval Office and noticed the Red phone sitting on the desk. 'What is that', he asked.
'That's my special line to heaven', said the President.
'Wow' said the Jewish President, 'How much does that cost'?
'$50 per minute' he was told.

On a return visit to Jerusalem the US President saw a similar Red phone on the Jewish Presidents desk. 'Oh, you've got a line to heaven as well. How much does yours cost?'
'5 cents an hour' was the reply.
'How do you manage to do it so cheap' said the US President.
'Ah' was the reply 'It's just a local call from here'.

[url="Poll: Santorum surges past Romney, both Republicans trail Obama"]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-poll-santorum-surges-past-romney-both-republicans-trail-obama-20120213,0,2015323.story[/url]

[quote="RockOnBrother"][color=black]
While you're at it, Trevor...

Love it

"Santorum: Obama's agenda based on 'phony theology'"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/santorum-obamas-agenda-based-on-phony-theology-114929.html

Via POLITICO's Juana Summers, Rick Santorum made comments at an event while campaigning earlier today as he spoke at an Ohio Christian Alliance event.

Slamming the president's agenda on a range of points, Santorum said the agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."

When reporters questioned what he meant later, Santorum stood by the comments.

"The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different – you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church."

He added, "If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that’s not a new low. That’s a reflection of exactly what….it is a new low. I should go back, it is a new low. The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of opressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.”

...

Can someone translate that gobbledegook to English purleeeze?

That’s a reflection of exactly what….it is a new low. I should go back, it is a new low. The president has reached a new low

In case you missed it the first time, the president reached a new low. And so has Santorum with his stupidity.

you may want to call it a theology

Does Santorum even know what a "theology" is? I'm having my doubts here. But his "trusted" advisers probably told Santorum to call it a "theology" without explaining to the poor man what it meant, so now he's stammering and stuttering like a 6th grader trying to use a new vocabulary word in a sentence that actually makes sense. Why would his advisers tell him to use that word? Because there's nothing better when brewing divisiveness than implying Obama is coming after you with a different heathen religion! Whoa! If you want the peasants to start grabbing pitchforks and torches, just tell them the barbarian hordes are over the next hill ready to bring their false gods into your town!

And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church.

So what. The religious right have been trumping the values of freedom since time immemorial. Payback is a ... bitc - wait, can I say that word here? Just as soon as 26 states repeal their religiously motivated gay marriage amendments, we can get down to the business of ascertaining just who is trumping whom in this country. And wait a minute ... is Santorum actually saying here that the "President of the United States is exercising his values"? I believe he DID. Well, Mr. Santorum, isn't that EXACTLY what you said YOU would do if you were elected? Why yes, you did! You said that you would use the power of the federal government to nudge people into living a more virtuous lifestyle. Yep! Oh how the hypocrisy flows like wine in Santorumland.

but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church

Rubbish on top of rubbish. The PEOPLE, including most Catholics, are in support of Obama's proposal. Even the political strategists are saying that the GOP's opposition to this bill will backfire. So much for Santorum actually paying attention to the poll numbers and supporting what the PEOPLE want. Santorum and any other religious hack that aspires to political office is going to find the going far more rough than they realize. Oh, getting people stirred up over religion is great - until the people themselves start realizing that religious tyranny is still tyranny even if they share the same religion as the tyrant. Not a whole lot of people give a damn if Obama's proposal trumps the church because the desire to have sex without risking a baby each time is far more important than some decree issued by fat, old bishops in funny clothing. After all, since when is America ruled from the Vatican?

I should go back

Yes, please do. I am fairly certain the space beneath your rock is still vacant.

in this country’s history of opressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.

LOL! Yes, you've never seen it before because you and your ilk were always the oppressors ... hahaha! The medicine tastes pretty yucky when you're on the other end of the spoon, eh, Mr. Santorum? Not even Germany could supply enough beer for Santorum to cry in.

If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine

Why does he keep bringing this up? What difference does it make? Obama could call it blatherology if he wanted to. Assuming Santorum hasn't already monopolized that discipline. I think he has.

but it is an imposition of his values over a church

Yes, a CHURCH ... not the people IN the church, most of whom support Obama's proposal. Our government is "for the people, of the people, and by the people" ... I don't see the word "Church" in there anywhere.

Polling released this weeks indicates that a strong majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support President Obama’s stance on making few exceptions to the mandate that health insurance plans include access to no-cost contraceptives.

The polling, done by the Public Religion Research Institute, shows that 73 percent of Democrats agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost. Sixty-two percent of women agreed with that statement, 58 percent of Catholics agreed. Fifty-seven percent of all voters agreed “that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Link

Thank you Shirina (again!! )


This guy Sanitarium seems to be saying the President should aliken himself to a Bishop or an Abbot

And as soon as the Presidint did (presuming he would, which he wouldn't)

Sanitorium would be down his (the President's) throat for over stepping the mark!

This guy Sanitarium seems to be saying the President should aliken himself to a Bishop or an Abbot

The moment religion becomes a dominant force within government, then that government ceases being "the will of the people" and instead becomes "the will of a religion."

Whether you believe in that religion or not.

Shirina. I've been 'eavesdropping'

Like Astra I would say thanks. Your explanations make things clearer over here. We have heard his type over here centuries back. Only then they called it the Spanish Inquisition - ooops. You will believe of else.

"Rick Santorum and the sexual counter-revolution" by Laurie Penny:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2012/02/women-rights-control-sexual

The appropriate response is (not ‘should be’), “Yes, and what are the negative consequences of women and girls having sex outside of marriage?”

Saying we should limit or ban birth control because it encourages women to have sex outside of marriage is like saying we should rip out all seat belts from our cars because they encourage people to drive recklessly.

It's just dumbass logic that conservatives use in abundance. Think about it for a few nanoseconds and, wow, it really doesn't make sense!

‘Yes, and what are the negative consequences of women and girls having sex outside of marriage?’”

Well, if they use birth control, the negative consequences are negligible ... which is why being against using it is dumbass logic. (And I'm not saying you, personally, are against it, but Santorum is).

Of course, no one is asking what the negative consequences are if men have sex outside of marriage ...

Perhaps if women weren't so sexualized by men, this question would be asked in an equal manner - "What are the negative consequences of people having sex outside of marriage?"

Re: Yet another right-wing fascist on the rise ...
by RockOnBrother Today at 7:43 am

.RockOnBrother wrote:

‘Yes, and what are the negative consequences of women and girls having sex outside of marriage?’”

Shirina wrote:

Well, if they use birth control, the negative consequences are negligible ... which is why being against using it is dumbass logic.


Your statement implies that all negative consequences to women and girls having sex outside of marriage can be negated by birth control. Have you considered any answers to the question as to the negative effects of women and girls having sex outside of marriage?

Shirina wrote:

(And I'm not saying you, personally, are against it, but Santorum is).


Rick Santorum is Roman Catholic, I believe, and if he has said that he opposes birth control (the article failed to quote Santorum), I suspect that he is adhering to the tenets of his religion. That’ the action of one who says what he means. My main point about Rick Santorum is, and continues to be, exactly that.

Shirina wrote:

Of course, no one is asking what the negative consequences are if men have sex outside of marriage ...


I am. In fact, I began asking that question prior to your cognizance. Through the years, I’ve mentally compiled quite a few negative consequences thereof. But the number or existence of negative consequences for men in no way speaks to numerous negative consequences for women and girls that I’ve witnessed.

Shirina wrote:

Perhaps if women weren't so sexualized by men…


Irrelevant. Each negative consequence for women and girls exists independent of anything men may or may not have done. Moreover, stealing from Chris Rock, “I’m glad my daddy ‘sexualized’ my mama; otherwise, I wouldn’t be here.” Say that with a Brooklyn accent to get the full effect.

Shirina wrote:

… this question would be asked in an equal manner


Your implicit premise, “females and males are equal” is flawed. Females and males are not equal...

… I hope you thought about that before proceeding. Nothing in that stated truth implies that men are superior to women, nor is their any implication therein that women are superior to men. The facts are that in areas in which women are superior to men, they are superior, and that in areas in which men are superior to women, they are superior. The summation is that women and men are interdependent one upon another, which implies nothing whatsoever about superiority or inferiority.

Genesis 126-27 supports this conclusion. Since I’ve mentioned it, I’ll gladly exposit Genesis 1:26-27 hereon to provide evidence of what I’ve said






If I remember rightly, St. Paul reminded his readers that despite the male dominated society of his time - 'no man came into the world except by woman.' Or similar words, depending on your particular translation.




Human- or God given - nature is all about 'sexualising' the female, and the female making herself attractive to the male, particularly in Western Society. And the male preening himself - the animal male often using his strength to attract.

Male and female have their respective places in society, neither is 'Everyone equal, but some more equal than others'. We share a human nature that is interdependent. We are different, but need each other.

Shirina wrote.
What are the negative consequences of people having sex outside of marriage?"

This implies that one is already married. The breakdown of trust can lead to marriage breakdown, family breakups and children deprived of a happy - or not - home. Other consequences which you, as an intelligent woman, obviously know.
If we talk about sleeping around 'before' marriage. This is how we spread many diseases. Contraception is not always a barrier to diseases spread in this way. Not only that, surely it is a matter of trust and respect. I'm probably unusual. I would be very careful of becoming involved with someone who had little respect for her own body or reputation. But then, as I said, I'm unusual.
If one is in a relationship, fair enough.

This thread will be divided into 14 separate posts with each post comparing the 14 points of fascism written by Dr. Laurence Britt to the current Republican political climate here in the USA. With but a few exceptions, the Republican party is displaying, almost to the letter, all of the inherent traits of a fascistic government. Both the Republican party political leaders and their followers are slowly but inevitably winging their way toward genuine fascism, and I intend to prove it. That's not to say that America is going to be the next Nazi Germany ... no, I certainly don't mean that. Yet fascism is fascism whether it is symbolized by a swastika or the stars and stripes. Even though I am liberal and a Democrat, I do not believe that *only* liberals and Democrats should be in power or that Republicans should never be president. I believe that we do need a balance of views.

However, because of this irrational, inexplicable hatred of Obama, the Republicans have shifted so far to the right that political analysts say that even Ronald Reagan could not get elected in this climate. At one point, the Republicans even devised a litmus test to determine if someone is a Republican. What is that all about? Perhaps, in order to run for office, Republicans will have to prove their Republican heritage going all the way back to 1750 in the same way Heinrich Himmler demanded SS officers prove their Aryan heritage. Even moderate Republicans are being branded with the "liberal" label for disagreeing and their voices are being shouted down. The more all of this continues, the further to the right - and further towards fascism - the Republicans travel. Even now, ammo is flying off the shelves and home-grown militia member ship is increasing at a prodigious rate all due to this silly fear of the "socialist, communist" Obama being re-elected. Just how large is this growing movement toward fascism? Well ... for the past 20 years, Romney has been considered a second or third rate politician, yet the "anyone but Obama" mantra has actually allowed this man to seriously challenge Obama for the presidency. In a rational world, this election shouldn't even be close ... but it is.

I don't believe that Romney is a fascist ... and his victory later this year will not guarantee that America will become fascist. In fact, most of these radical Republicans don't even like Romney. He's too liberal, of course! But, he's not Obama, and that's all that matters. However, until the Republican party returns to a more moderate position, they need to be barred from the halls of power lest we do fall prey to fascism.

So, without further ado, let's begin the comparison. Feel free to insert any comments you may have at any time (as I won't be writing all 14 posts at once ... that would be way too much work in one sitting!)

The first sign of fascism is:

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.

I think many Europeans have seen this attitude among Americans since the Reagan years. The arrogant American. The ugly American. The rude American. The American who has never left his nation (or even his own state) yet is disdainful of other nations and cultures. All the while they proclaim loudly that America is the greatest country on earth! Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with healthy patriotism; without it, we would simply be 7 billion souls without a sense of connection beyond the immediate family group or tribe. Yet, just like with candy, too much patriotism can make a nation sick. One of the ways this sickness manifests is when one group begins looking at other groups and deeming them "un-American." That's when you know things have gone too far. We're not talking about treason, divided loyalties, or hating America. No, being un-American simply means you do not march in lockstep with the "proper" ideology. In this case, conservatives think liberals are not only un-American but also that liberals literally *hate* America. This is most evident when this accusation is waged against the president, and no doubt we will hear the Romney campaign accuse Obama of being un-American. But let's break Dr. Britt's point #1 into its component parts:

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins




I don't mean to suggest that displaying your nation's flag or wearing a flag lapel pin automatically denotes fascism. I'm certainly not that presumptuous. However, when NOT wearing a lapel pin becomes an issue, it does hint at the fascistic beliefs that are following closely behind:



Much noise was made over this video because Obama didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem:



Turns out that not wearing a flag lapel pin isn't the only way Barack Obama chooses to show he's a different kind of Democrat.

Have a look at the photo from the October 1, 2007 edition of "Time." It shows Obama, Hillary and Bill Richardson at the Steak Fry of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on September 17 in Indianola, IA during [according to the photo caption] the National Anthem. Richardson and Clinton have their hands on their heart. But not Obama. Does he perhaps believe that, like wearing the flag pin, the hand on the heart isn't "true patriotism"?
(LINK)

But for the real truth about this situation, read this article on Snopes. It gives a very good idea of just how far the conservatives took these videos, circulating lies and false information:
(LINK)

catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism.

Well, we certainly have enough catchy slogans - everything from "freedom isn't free" to "God bless America." However, having pride in the military is a touchier subject. Obviously, if your sons and daughters are off fighting a war, you want them to be victorious regardless of the reasons for the war ... which generated another catchy slogan we still see all over the place: "Support our troops!" Only the dregs of society, such as those scum from the Westboro Baptist Church, would wish for our soldiers to be killed. But during the early years of the Iraq war, daring to criticize Bush's motives for this senseless invasion would get you branded by conservatives as ... you guessed it ... un-American.

Many conservatives I've talked to and argued with have a strange inability to make fine distinctions. To them, the situation is all or nothing, black or white, right or wrong. If you are not joining them on their end of the extreme, you must, by default, be taking the side of the opposite extreme. Thus they cannot make that distinction between supporting the troops and being proud of our military while simultaneously objecting to and being ashamed of how our military is being used. Of course we want our boys and girls to win the fight, but what we want even more is to bring them home. This, to them, is often construed as a negative sentiment, something a "typical liberal" would say, something a communist, socialist, anti-American would say.

Demands for unity? Yes, that is present, as well. There have been many claims from people like Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, and others that everyone should be Christian conservative Republicans. Because their ideology is the only "One True" ideology. In fact, Ann Coulter has publicly said that women should not have the right to vote ... because without the female vote, we would never elect another Democrat. Hmm, for all of their talk about not wanting to be like the Soviets, they sure seem willing to pull out all the stops to create a one party system of government.

It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

One of the reasons why some conservatives don't want NHS in this country is because ... America is America, dammit, not commie socialist Europe! Those wussies! Yet the xenophobia against Muslims, against Latinos, against non-Christians ... it goes well beyond mere suspicion. Some folks, like this former congressmen, want all non-Christians to just "go home" or "go somewhere else."


And then there's gem of a bill being considered in Kansas:

KANSAS CITY, Kansas — Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill aimed at keeping state courts and agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws when making decisions, his office said on Friday, drawing criticism from a national Muslim group.

About 20 states have considered similar legislation but the Kansas law is the only one signed in recent weeks, council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.
"It's unfortunate the governor chose to pander to the growing Islam-phobia in our society that has led to introduction of similar unconstitutional and un-American legislation in dozens of state legislatures," Hooper said.
LINK

And what is the deal with the constant accusations of Obama being a Muslim?



The fact of that matter is:  There is no constitutional requirement that a president must be a Christian. There simply isn't one. Yet the xenophobia of Muslims is so pervasive that the mere thought of Obama having been anywhere NEAR Muslims during his childhood has been a constant topic of debate since before he was even elected. The president's faith - if he has one at all - should not even be a factor, but what is worse is how the possibility of his Muslim faith is viewed with the same contempt and suspicion as if Obama had ties to Hitler. Far too many believe that being Muslim means you are automatically anti-American which brings us full circle back to nationalism and displays of patriotism.

Now ... I could present more evidence. Lots more. But I think we can all agree that the United States is one of the most fiercely nationalistic countries on the planet, and with that fierceness comes an intolerance of anything non-conservative, non-Christian, non-Republican, and dare I say it ... non-white. All of this by itself does not make America a fascist nation. By itself. But remember, there are 13 more points left to go, and the evidence only gets better. Much, MUCH better.

Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.

Part of the explanation for America's lurch to the Right may lie in a simple examination of the changes since 1945. The most powerful Nation in the world found itself increasingly in competition with others, some of whom did not uncritically adopt "The American Way of Life". There was no way to dissemble around that fact after nine-eleven, and a lot of US citizens had to re-appraise their position in the World and the way in which they feel about themselves within that changed World.

Some have reacted by circling the wagons, and are looking both backwards and inward to reaffirm their customary beliefs. If it's a pause for reflection, good may yet come from it.

Fascistic Point #2:

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.

The trouble with this point is deciding what, precisely, is considered a "human right." In the United States, many conservatives use the US Constitution as a weapon ensuring that a larger number of issues - such as health care - do not become "human rights." Many frequently use the fact that universal healthcare is NOT provided for via the Constitution ergo the US government does not have the right to establish it. The rest of the world, meanwhile, has firmly established that healthcare IS a right and have implemented strong protections for the poor should they become ill. Meanwhile, the US pours hundreds of millions of dollars every year into giving foreigners free health care in far flung places, but they refuse to lift a finger to help their next door neighbor, a fellow American, who loses everything due to a debilitating illness.

It is odd, then, that the typical conservative American only disdains human rights for his own countrymen but adores it when it those rights are doled out to other nations.

Again, let's break the points down to their component parts.

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite.

This issue becomes more clear when one realizes that the conservatives have created a more palatable euphemism for the term "ruling elite." Now they call the ruling elite "Job Creators." It's almost laughable in its transparency, but there it is. Apparently the conservative spin doctors believe that selling a term like "Job Creators" (which lends the false impression that the ruling elite are "in it for the little guy") to the American public will have everyone all but worshiping the wealthy. And why not? Most conservatives already do. Why aren't YOU? (And if you don't, you're un-American!).

This may not be a horrible thing if the so-called Job Creators were actually creating jobs ... but they're not. They certainly have the money to create them but, instead, they're hoarding their wealth. Why? The reason is pretty straight forward. The ruling elite (I refuse to call them Job Creators) are essentially holding the American people hostage in order to gain fewer government regulations and lower taxes. As long as the economy continues to be sluggish, it is their hope that the American people will get fed up with Obama and elect a right-winger into power who will disband most or all of the regulations that protect workers from abuse and who will slash taxes (again) for the wealthiest Americans. Coupled with the insatiable right-wing propaganda machine which preaches night and day about how Big Government is killing businesses (despite record corporate profits throughout the Obama administration), this hostage situation is actually succeeding. There is a 50/50 chance that the American people will embrace a form of economic Stockholm Syndrome and idolize their captors.

What does this have to do with human rights? Well ... many conservatives want a blanket repeal of many regulations that have served America for many decades. Some states have even advocated a repeal of such human rights regulations as child labor laws.

If state Sen. Jane Cunningham has her way, the under-14 crowd will no longer have to worry about those stuffy labor laws saying they can’t hold a job. Teenagers of all ages will be freed from restrictions limiting how many hours they can flip burgers. And if they want to staff the drive-through window all night long, Cunningham is for that too. To heck with those early morning classes.

Cunningham, a Republican from St. Louis County, would also repeal the requirement that 14- and-15-year-olds apply for a special permit in order to work. And the state Division of Labor Standards would no longer inspect workplaces that employ children or require them to keep special records for their youthful employees.

Cunningham is totally pro-business, but this is over the top. Under her proposed legislation, a 12- or-13-year-old could be sent to work full time in Missouri, perhaps under the guise of receiving a home-school education, of which Cunningham is a big supporter.(LINK)

Of course this is a flagrant human rights violation - and let's face it - if these kids are responsible enough to hold down a full-time job at age 12 or 13, could it not be argued that they are also responsible enough to have consensual sex or to stand trial for all crimes as an adult? Or to drink alcohol? To drive? To serve in the military? To vote? Yet any clear-thinking person should already understand the rationale behind wanting to repeal child labor laws. Have you figured it out yet? That's right ... cheap and easily-exploitable labor! After all, what you don't see Cunningham wanting to repeal is the federal law stating that only children 16 years or older must be paid minimum wage. If they are 15 years old or younger, a company can pay them next to nothing and still force them to work full time.

Yes, those child labor laws are certainly "a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite," which is to hoard all the wealth and turn our cities into virtual slave labor camps.

Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted.

Conservatives in this country hate the poor, and there are many human rights violations taking place against the poor that never make the news. One of the reasons is because the poor rarely ever go running to the media with a story - and if they do, they are often doubted because they don't have money, college degrees, and other irrelevant credentials that supposedly make them credible.

Here's an anecdotal example. My roommate is training to be a long-haul trucker. The company which hired her paid for her to take a bus to their training facility in Waxahatchie, Texas. Now, in America, only the poorest among us actually take buses. Go to any bus station and you will see plenty of vagrants, homeless using stations as shelters, and religious peddlers handing out pamphlets. Of course, the authorities also know the poor often rely on buses since they cannot afford to drive or fly. When my roommate arrived in Waxahatchie, the police were there waiting. She assumed there was a criminal on the bus and the police would simply arrest the suspect and that would be that.

But that's not what happened. Instead, all of the arriving passengers were lined up like prisoners in a camp and told that they must produce at least one dollar in cash. Anyone who could not do so would be immediately arrested for vagrancy. My roommate told me that people really were arrested for nothing more than not having any money on their person. Not only is this a human rights violation and wholly fascistic, it is actually illegal according to the United States Supreme Court. In the 1972 Supreme Court case Papachristou v. Jacksonville it was ruled that vagrancy laws are unconstitutional since they are too broad and also punish people based on status rather than conduct.

As for demonizing the poor who are often the victims of human rights violations (I could give more examples, but I'll let it go for now), I'll simply let these videos exemplify it.

In this one, note how Gingrich constantly talks about "paying for things" then derides the Occupy Wall Street movement for claiming to be the paragon of virtue - as if having to pay for everything including public bathrooms and public parks is virtuous. Fortunately, public places in America do not (yet) require proof of tax payment before you're allowed to use them.


Of course, they should go find a job rather than exercise their Constitutional right to protest.

And here, former presidential candidate Herman Cain does a classic bait-and-switch by taking the blame away from Wall Street and Big Business (who actually caused the Great Recession) and instead points the finger at the government which, ironically, he was trying to become the president of. Oh, and yeah ... they should all go get a job, too. That is ironic, as well, given that they try to use the high unemployment rate as a reason not to vote for Obama. So which is it, you raving liars? Either there are plenty of jobs for the OWS folks to obtain, or the economy is bad and unemployment is high ... but it can't be both.


And then there's this, the result of trying to protest against the ruling elite - the stuff you do not see on the news:


This is a video of a right-wing Tea Party protest. What's important to observe here is that there is not a massive police presence and no one is being tackled and arrested. Interesting how a protest in support of our capitalist masters are left alone, but protests against them are dispersed with force.


And for one final story to prove my point:

Scammers committing a particularly painful form of identity theft appear to have hit on just the right formula to trick thousands of victims: A punishing heat wave, large utility bills, a bad economy and a good story. The criminals have been marching across the country, making their way from state to state, persuading victims that a special federal government assistance program -- sometimes described as a bailout authorized by President Barack Obama's administration -- is available to pay their utility bills. Victims are given bank account and routing numbers to use when paying their bills online, but only after they "register" by surrendering their Social Security numbers and other personal information. (LINK)

And here are some of the comments left by posters:

"The tough times we are going through in this Country is because we have a plethora of individuals that don't want to work....it's easier to take a handout! There are no "Handouts" with out repercussions....EVER." (with 30 "likes") -- Kelly Cagle Valezquez

"This is a perfect example of why the Obama-ites vote for him. SOMETHING FOR NOTHING! Since he has taken office, this is about the only thing he has brought to the table--a leaning toward Socialism and wild spending. Oh yeah, one more thing--how to point the finger at others because nothing is his fault." (With 6 "likes") -- Terry Banderas

Just a review - remember the original point: Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted.

"Kurt, I worked at the supervisor of elections office during the 08 election. Let me tell u, 99 percent of the people I saw walking thru those doors are EXACTLY the people who not only would fall for this scam, they are the same 99 percent who believe its owed to them." (With 4 "likes") -- Deb Sinder Saxton

"deadbeats looking for more Handouts from Obama fall for another SCAM." (With 3 "likes") -- Richard Litwa

"With half the country having the "you owe me" mentality, not paying any federal taxes and being on food stamps, this sounds perfectly reasonable to them. Just another taxpayer funded handout courtesy of Barack Obama." (With 2 "likes") -- John Spitler

There were hundreds more. It gives an idea of how the "use of clever propaganda" has done precisely what the fascistic elements in our society set out to do - demonize and marginalize the poor, which now represents 48% of the American population (2010 census data). When said propaganda can literally demonize nearly half the country, or 150 million people, the dangers of civil rights abuse becomes astonishingly clear. What I found telling about the comments left by these people is that, out of hundreds (if not thousands) of comments, only a tiny handful ... literally a handful ... had anything negative to say about the actual scam and the criminals who organized it. What does that mean?

Well, the issue at stake is the complete lack of regard for the criminal element. There was virtually no outrage hurled at the actual scammers. Instead, those who were not liberal hurled their outrage at the poor and Obama. This complete apathy toward criminality - especially criminality perpetrated against the very people they already hate - sets the stage for an acceptance of criminality. It sends a message to the ruling elite which says, "We can cheat, lie, and steal all we wish to. The public will just blame it on the poor and the president." Thus things such as Barclay's interest rate fixing goes virtually unnoticed by a pitchfork-wielding mob intent upon demonizing the wrong side of the socioeconomic spectrum - even if it means they're paying $100 more per month on their mortgages thanks to scheming by the "Job Creators."

Hell, we may even reach a point where the public will endorse and sanction criminality and human rights violations with a majority vote. Don't believe me? It's already happened - 38 times, in fact, with each state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That is a violation of civil rights. Is marriage a right? No. But neither is voting yet we treat voting as a civil right. There is no universal suffrage amendment in the US Constitution, something most people are not aware of. According to the Constitution, we do NOT have the right to vote. We simply can't be denied the vote based on gender, race, or due to a poll tax. That's IT. We can be denied the vote for any other reason. The important lesson here is that we have many privileges we consider to be "civil rights" that are, in fact, not guaranteed rights at all. Marriage is one of them since it is treated as a right in every sense possible. Thus banning certain people from marrying is, in every litmus test, a civil rights violation. Yet the gays were demonized enough that the public voted in fascistic measures to keep them from the altar.

If it happened once, it can EASILY happen again.

Thanks for reading.

In a nation of 314 million inhabitants, it's no doubt possible to identify holders of just about ANY political adherence and/or religious conviction.

The US debate around Islam makes George W Bush look progressive

Extracts from an article by Lindy West:-

When the planes hit the towers on  9/11, I was asleep in my dorm room in Los Angeles. Classes went ahead as scheduled, though they were sparsely attended. A few students were angry – they wanted the teacher to validate their instincts that something intrinsic in Islam was to blame for this unfathomable violence. (She didn’t.) A larger number, myself included, couldn’t help looking into the future and dreading the potentially deadly discrimination and abuse facing innocent Muslims in America and abroad. The professor gently reminded us of what we had already learned in her class: the scope of Islam, its vast internal diversity, its potential to justify good or ill, just like any religion.

I also remember thinking, “Oh my God, I wish anyone else on earth was president right now besides George W Bush. Like, even a traffic cone with a face drawn on it”. The reaction of Republican presidential candidates to the horrific terrorist attack in Paris and the ongoing Syrian refugee crisis has proven me woefully wrong on that count. There are at least 14 people who would make much, much worse presidents than George W Bush, and, alarmingly, all of them are currently running for president.

It used to be that politicians had to cloak their xenophobia and Islamophobia behind coded language and tacitly oppressive policy. Today’s Republican slate, by contrast, appears to be embroiled in a game of oneupmanship as to who can be the most aggressively, repulsively retrograde and fascistic.

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/the-us-debate-around-islam-makes-george-w-bush-look-progressive

Same in England - I dipped into the comments and was truly appalled - and that's even without reading the Sun

"Blames Immigrants for America's problems."

Thank heavens there's nobody like that in our Country.

Over there, the native Americans

must feel relieved.